Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PIT - Perl Intergration Testers Alan Burlison
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Alan Burlison [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispered: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | PIT - Perl Intergration Testers | | Alan Burlison Not to pick on Alan, God knows he's been doing us all a real favor lately with the leaktest stuff. But can we please stop crossposting this thread to -announce? For that matter, does it really need to go to 7 individuals, and 5 lists? -spp
Re: Things have paused... really?
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote: valuable and interesting. (aside: Python is Mahler. Discuss.) So while we may Hmm, I think of Python as more Babbit than Mahler. Perl is ... John Cage? -dave /*== www.urth.org We await the New Sun ==*/
Re: State of PDD 0
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:15:56PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: Bryan C. Warnock writes: Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there be a new one (perl-pdd)? I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan? How about two lists? I still think that there should be a two-tiered process. I think its a mistake to have a 'one size fits all' process. See my other post on this. Ed
Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and CPAN)
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:38:03PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote: RFC 362 --- =head1 TITLE The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive. It's my understanding that this is, in fact, the plan. The only reason things have paused (and it is a pause, not a stop) is that we're waiting for Larry to take what's been done so far and build something resembling a coherent base we can implement. After that's done then we'll have something to work from, which is a good thing. Ok, fair enough. I think that perl should have a two-tiered process though, and it should be ongoing and two tiered. Bryan Warnock mentioned PDD as being 'comprehensive', but I think that is a mistake. There should be a more formal process for distilling conversations, lest we repeat length(@array), '??', etc, ad-nauseum. PDD should be stuff that was decided as 'golden' and then implemented. If we don't ever stop, ponder, and implement, the RFCs will be just another go-round of intellectual masturbation. (and we *really* don't need to go there...) Yeah, it means the process will be bursty, but that's just the nature of the beast. Fair enough too, except that my time *too* is bursty, and that the time I can give may or may not correspond with community time. I'll write them down, and post them to perl6-rfc (or perl6-meta). And if they miss the 'original' pass, that's fine with me. Ed
Re: State of PDD 0
At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: Bryan C. Warnock writes: Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there be a new one (perl-pdd)? I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan? I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might actually want to leave the two (PDD RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for 'external' things,... I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from the ones that are post-deadline. The advantage to having the original deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish or cut bait. If we're going to continue this process now, I move that: New RFCs be numbered starting from 1000 (easiest way to denote the difference); Old RFCs are frozen, and that means frozen. I have no idea how far Larry's got on digesting them and I really don't want to try and interfere with something that could be making its way down his small intestine. People should be free to write new RFCs that contradict older ones, or head off on some tangent, but please let's not keep refining the old ones, enough is enough. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies
Re: State of PDD 0
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote: At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: Bryan C. Warnock writes: Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there be a new one (perl-pdd)? I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan? I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might actually want to leave the two (PDD RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for 'external' things,... I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from the ones that are post-deadline. The advantage to having the original deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish or cut bait. If we're going to continue this process now, I move that: New RFCs be numbered starting from 1000 (easiest way to denote the difference); Old RFCs are frozen, and that means frozen. I have no idea how far Larry's got on digesting them and I really don't want to try and interfere with something that could be making its way down his small intestine. People should be free to write new RFCs that contradict older ones, or head off on some tangent, but please let's not keep refining the old ones, enough is enough. Strongly agreed. -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and CPAN)
- Original Message - From: "Dan Sugalski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Edward Peschko" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:51 PM Subject: Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and CPAN) ..we're waiting for Larry.. yep wry smile I am, basically, just *dying* to see perl6! Ho Hum...
Re: State of PDD 0
At 04:43 PM 2/20/2001 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote: At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: Bryan C. Warnock writes: Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there be a new one (perl-pdd)? I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan? I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might actually want to leave the two (PDD RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for 'external' things,... I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from the ones that are post-deadline. The advantage to having the original deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish or cut bait. If we're going to continue this process now, I move that: New RFCs be numbered starting from 1000 (easiest way to denote the difference); Old RFCs are frozen, and that means frozen. I have no idea how far Larry's got on digesting them and I really don't want to try and interfere with something that could be making its way down his small intestine. People should be free to write new RFCs that contradict older ones, or head off on some tangent, but please let's not keep refining the old ones, enough is enough. Strongly agreed. That works for me--we could increment the thousands number by one each time we open things up for a new RFC period. Once we have a working perl 6 of some sort we can kick in with RFC 1000, and once perl 6.1 is done we can go with 2000, and so on. Dan --"it's like this"--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: State of PDD 0
Dan Sugalski writes: I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might actually want to leave the two (PDD RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for 'external' things, and PDD for the actual internals implementation of things. Ultimately, I think we're going to need at least three different types of documentation: * internals design documents (PDDs) * language design documents (PLDs?) * change requests, once we've got something to change (PCRs) As you can see, I favour getting away from the RFC name. I wish I'd listened to people who warned me about the confusion the name would choose. This also means we don't have to renumber or start counting from 1000 to differentiate the old RFCs from new ones. Nat
Re: State of PDD 0
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:17:18PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 04:01 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: Dan Sugalski writes: I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might actually want to leave the two (PDD RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for 'external' things, and PDD for the actual internals implementation of things. Ultimately, I think we're going to need at least three different types of documentation: * internals design documents (PDDs) * language design documents (PLDs?) * change requests, once we've got something to change (PCRs) That works. I rather like it, and I expect once we get a working perl 6, we probably won't need to freeze things either--worst case we mark a proposed document irrelevant or something of the sort. Well, how about calling 'Language Design Documents' "RFC's" ? After all, the term RFC is a lot more generic; it can encorporate comments on *anything* perl related. Ed
Re: State of PDD 0
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:42:01PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 02:38 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's? Sounds good to me. Any additional constraints on acceptance criteria? PDD 0 describes an acceptable baseline on rejection (return incomplete submissions), but I daresay that we want something more strict. For example, I doubt that we want or need three competing PDDs on Async I/O developing in the Standard track, but multiple PDDs on the same topic would be welcome if they were Experimental (or even Informational). Would any other constraints help to promote discussion moving forward? The goal isn't to be burdensome on people actually volunteering their time, but to cut down on the crosstalk that doesn't lead to Real Work(tm). Z.
Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and CPAN)
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:51, Dan Sugalski wrote: Honestly, the PDDs are for the stuff that was implemented, not the stuff that was decided. Or, more clearly, PDDs describe the implementation or proposed implementation at the internals level. RFCs are for language-level features. It should sort of do both. Okay, maybe arbitrary language decisions needn't be P?Dd, but there should be some documented consensus, even for a language feature, of what is (or will be), if only to give the developers a clear target to shoot for. We should have PDDs on garbage collection and memory allocation (I know, I know--I'm working on it! :). We should not have PDDs on, say, currying. Well, a well-designed spec on currying language would certainly help with development of the internals to handle currying. It would also provide a nice starting point for the currying documentation. Lest the architect say, "Build me a house", and then complain that we don't match the plans he never gave us. -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: State of PDD 0
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 18:17, Dan Sugalski wrote: Ultimately, I think we're going to need at least three different types of documentation: * internals design documents (PDDs) * language design documents (PLDs?) * change requests, once we've got something to change (PCRs) That works. I rather like it, and I expect once we get a working perl 6, we probably won't need to freeze things either--worst case we mark a proposed document irrelevant or something of the sort. Well, there's also Meta stuff for discussion that we should probably document as well. As much as I disliked RFC, I also disliked PDD, as it 'sounds' internal. But do we create a new category for every new area we attempt to document, or do we change the name to reflect something more generic? (The PDD has a Class field to distinguish between internals, meta, and language already.) If we go with mulitple documents, is the numbering scheme concurrent? I'm also thinking heavily about change requests, and whether they should be separate, or a stage beyond Standard. Pros and cons welcome. -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: State of PDD 0
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:38, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: I have created perl6-announce-pdd. Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for clues. How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's? Can you confirm the actual submission address? Are we using perl-pdd? And did we want to make this Perl 6 specific, or Perl generic (like perl-qa is)? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] after sending the (unnumbered) PDD to perl6-internals and I will add it to the list. Will be changed when the PDD traffic gets higher. - ask -- ask bjoern hansen - http://ask.netcetera.dk/ more than 70M impressions per day, http://valueclick.com
