On Saturday 07 August 2010 00:44:05 Ovid wrote: > Laughing at that "active_dev" tag. >
What's wrong with it? Some modules are not actively developed, meaning that they have reached API freeze or that the author is happy with them as they are or they are considered deprecated and/or are in a deep-maintenance mode. > I can't say I've really been paying attention here, but while some tags > (requires C compiler) seem like they might be reasonable, other tags such > as "black_magic" seem highly subjective. And the "source_filter" tag seems > to belong in the "black_magic" category. Well, tags may be overlapping. But not all "black_magic" modules are source filters (e.g: Error.pm which is not a source filter, but is black magic.). > > How were these tags chosen? Heck, where did the entire idea originate? Well, as I recall, it surfaced as part of the "Rethinking CPAN" project: http://groups.google.com/group/rethinking-cpan We maintain some wiki pages for it there: http://perl.net.au/wiki/Finding_a_Module_on_CPAN Among them the definitive tags page. Part of the reason I created the spec now was that authors sought a way to indicate that a module was one of the tags: orphaned / adopt_me: http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.module-authors/2010/04/msg8504.html This seems like a perfect use of the META.yml keywords tag. > I've > not been paying attention lately (getting married will do that to you). > This seems a bit odd, though I somewhat like the thought (particularly the > "adopt_me" tag). > Nice. :-). Regards, Shlomi Fish -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ My Aphorisms - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html God considered inflicting XSLT as the tenth plague of Egypt, but then decided against it because he thought it would be too evil. Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
