Just butting in, apologies.
It may not have been Jim's intention below, but I get the impression that his comments on
CPAN are a bit harsh.
It is true that a number of modules are apparently no longer supported. I have used many
modules over the years, and sometimes have had problems with
No apology please. In terms of trying to qualify any of this, a larger
statistical pool is better. And I am no authority. My perceptions are
largely based on forum postings which causes an inherent bias.
I'd love to see this conversation continue, especially if participants
included those
In their absence, I'd note that your post has an interesting ambiguity: Is
the number of unsupported modules 2.5% or 25%?
The 'supported' metric doesn't really translate the same in reference
to open source software as it does to commercial software. When a
commercial software product becomes
Jim Schueler wrote:
No apology please. In terms of trying to qualify any of this, a larger
statistical pool is better. And I am no authority. My perceptions are
largely based on forum postings which causes an inherent bias.
I'd love to see this conversation continue, especially if
With regards to Apache::DBI, it is very much supported :)
No. It is not. What little I know of you, you seem knowledgable and
experienced. But you don't seem to have read this thread. The
documentation says that the module will be supported by this list, and the
facts now demonstrate
Jim,
I just don't see the issue with not having an individual's name on one of
the mod_perl modules as the support contact. To me, Apache::DBI is being
supported, exactly as the documentation says. Someone wrote to the mailing
list, asked a question, and received responses that were trying to
Modules with reliable owners, such as Soap::Lite, deserve the highest
level of confidence.
Currently SOAP::Lite doesn't have an 'owner' per se. I sent a patch
into rt.cpan.org a few weeks ago, and as a result I was given COMAINT
on CPAN for it, applied many fixes, and released 0.716 (which
