why not SourceForge? (was: Re: Perl6 goes where?)
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 09:50:17AM -0400, Buddy Burden wrote: Brian, Sourceforget sucks. Don't start using it just because I did. :) I'd be really curious to hear your opinions on Sourceforge (there may be a push to force us to start using it here at work). If you don't think you could sum it up and briefly and/or think it's too off-topic here, maybe you could post it somewhere else. But I'm sure lots of folks could benefit from your accumulated wisdom. :) I think one issue is that the only still offer CVS for SCM, while many people want something else now: Subversion or darcs for example. ( Although people have figured out how to publish darcs repos into their SF web space: http://darcs.net/DarcsWiki/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#head-d5a5bbdfabe810765004987ace054cb5e90e9ab8 ). There's also the ads. It's nice to work in ad-free environment whenever possible. It's still nice that SourceForge bundles several services that somewhat integrated and ready-to-go. Mark
Re: Perl6 goes where?
On 7/28/05, Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I heard (or more probably read somewhere) that the name was 6PAN? you are mixing it with 6PACK ;-) Gabor
Re: Perl6 goes where?
* Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-28 16:05]:
I thought I heard (or more probably read somewhere) that the
name was 6PAN?
That makes no sense. What is a “6 Perl Archive Network?” Okay,
visually, it roughly resembles “CPAN,” but I don’t see that as a
good reason to pick a nonsensical initialism…
Regards,
--
*AUTOLOAD=*_=sub{s/(.*)::(.*)/print$2,(,$\/, )[defined wantarray]/e;$1};
Just-another-Perl-hacker;
#Aristotle
Re: Perl6 goes where?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 05:47:51PM +, Smylers wrote: Andy Lester writes: I don't think we need another CPAN at all. There's nothing wrong with putting require 6; at the top of Makefile.PL and keeping everything in one happy CPAN. There is a problem if it interferes with people trying to use identically named Perl 5 modules. If a Perl 6 DBI module exists, I posit that it would not be a good thing if this was what the CPAN or CPANPLUS modules automatically down load, nor if that's what the Cpan Search website presents as being the most recent version of DBI. Yeah.. and there will be cases where people forget to require one way or the other. Consider this - if having perl 6 modules mixed in with 5 is no problem, it shouldn't be that hard to merge them. If it _is_ a problem, it could be a real pain to separate them, unless there is a simple mechanism which explicitly guarantees any given module is compatible one way or the other. Require might work if you could force people to do it. Austin
Re: Perl6 goes where?
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat wrote: Le jeudi 28 juillet 2005 à 16:32, A. Pagaltzis écrivait: * Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-28 16:05]: I thought I heard (or more probably read somewhere) that the name was 6PAN? That makes no sense. What is a ???6 Perl Archive Network Okay, visually, it roughly resembles ???CPAN,??? but I don???t see that as a good reason to pick a nonsensical initialism??? If found a reference to the name 6PAN here (that was in 2002): http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-stdlib@perl.org/msg00135.html Anyway, isn't nonsensical a prerequisite in the Perl world? Many Perl names started as jokes : Parrot, ponie, CPANTS... You could have a camel with 6 pans hanging off of him as an icon. :) -- /chris There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Re: Perl6 goes where?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 03:14:03PM -0500, Chris wrote: On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andy Lester wrote: On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:32:11PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-28 16:05]: I thought I heard (or more probably read somewhere) that the name was 6PAN? I don't think we need another CPAN at all. There's nothing wrong with putting require 6; at the top of Makefile.PL and keeping everything in one happy CPAN. That means CPAN is going to have to parse it, and keep a record of the data so it splits development trees. Module authors will probably have to maintain dual branches of code between p5 and p6 for at least one year. I doubt that everyone will be able to jump on the perl6 bandwagon right away. None of that sounds unpossible... but what is compelling about not keeping 5/6 modules separate to begin with? I would tend to want an author to have verified their module is '6 compatible' before using it in the first place. Keeping ver 6 modules separate seems like the simplest solution to that problem. Austin
Re: Perl6 goes where?
On 7/28/05, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andy Lester wrote: I don't think we need another CPAN at all. There's nothing wrong with putting require 6; at the top of Makefile.PL and keeping everything in one happy CPAN. That means CPAN is going to have to parse it, and keep a record of the data so it splits development trees. Module authors will probably have to maintain dual branches of code between p5 and p6 for at least one year. I doubt that everyone will be able to jump on the perl6 bandwagon right away. The data source for the CPAN module MUST restrict listings to latest perl5 version. In fact, maintaining different listings of latest version depending on host version level has been something of an unfunded mandate for some years now AIUI. I doubt CPANPLUS does the trick of restricting upgrade targets to modules compat. with your installation, either -- it would rather go and fetch the latest perl 5 source. -- David L Nicol This has been your one free extra mile
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Test::Simple/More/Builder 0.60_01
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 05:48:58PM -0500, Peter wrote: So, the way I would go about using this would be something like this? my $obj=new SomeObj(); isa($obj, SomeObj) or BAIL_OUT(It wasn't my object :(); isa_ok() but you get the idea. You call it when you think the code is so busted that its not worth continuing any testing, that means halting the current test and not running any further test files. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern Ahh email, my old friend. Do you know that revenge is a dish that is best served cold? And it is very cold on the Internet!
Re: Perl6 goes where?
--- Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 28, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote: That's true. All the smarts could be centralized in the indexer. But then there's the problem of making sure when someone's browsing CPAN manually (on a regular mirror or on search.cpan.org or wherever) that they don't accidentally download perl6 modules when they meant to download perl5 modules. CPAN(PLUS)? may use only the index files, but people's brains don't. Because we still put require 6 in Build.PL and their perl Build.PL chokes and they see pretty quickly what's going on (we hope.) Then at least there's a chance of them figuring out how to resolve the problem. So far, putting stuff in the indexer is the best idea I've heard. Cheers, Ovid -- If this message is a response to a question on a mailing list, please send follow up questions to the list. Web Programming with Perl -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
Re: Perl6 goes where?
Ken Williams wrote: On Jul 28, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote: As far as distinguishing, there a lot of talk in the past in the context of Apache2 about adding a field (generation) which serves basically the same purpose - It distinguishes between multiple code bases intended for different targets. Personally I really don't like the idea of the generation field. I think it's too strict a mechanism for a nebulous notion. Doh! I guess that was kind of a dumb idea since we already have requires: perl: 6.0 in META.yml which works perfectly well for that.
Re: Perl6 goes where?
Ovid wrote: --- Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 28, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote: That's true. All the smarts could be centralized in the indexer. But then there's the problem of making sure when someone's browsing CPAN manually (on a regular mirror or on search.cpan.org or wherever) that they don't accidentally download perl6 modules when they meant to download perl5 modules. CPAN(PLUS)? may use only the index files, but people's brains don't. Because we still put require 6 in Build.PL and their perl Build.PL chokes and they see pretty quickly what's going on (we hope.) Then at least there's a chance of them figuring out how to resolve the problem. So far, putting stuff in the indexer is the best idea I've heard. Hmm, this could probably be fixed easily also. Either by using a Apache handler for directory listings (?not too familiar with web development, but isn't that what is used when a directory listing is requested?) or by having PAUSE generate/update an index file for each module/author directory at the time of submission. If it's a P6 distribution, the listing could display a special icon. Not sure how this would affect performance of the server... Might be a good idea to run this whole scenario by Andreas Koenig, and then by the folks over on the perl6.language list. There may be valid reasons for wanting a seperate server, but I can't think of anything off-hand. Randy.
