> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:03 AM, sawyer x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perhaps we do need some added guidelines to CPAN.
>
> My 2 cents: CPAN is fundamentally a free-wheeling, fairly anarchic
> place run by volunteers and containing the work of volunteers.
> Anything that imposes greater restrictions (a) requires more work for
> maintainers and (b) decreases the freedom to innovate. For both
> reasons, more rules or guidelines are to be avoided.
I understand what you mean but I'm not sure any change (and I don't think in
the way of "restrictions") would have bad consequences, but if it will
evidently do so, it's a good reason not to have these changes. I just wouldn't
jump the gun on this that quickly.
> > the fact that many modules that were abandoned are still used and the
> > patches
> > in the bug reports are piling up when you just need someone to apply them
> > and have them tested,
>
> Others have describe the process for taking over abandoned
> distributions. It works quite well. I've inherited a few things that
> I liked but needed to fix. Authors are volunteers and fixing things
> takes work. If it's important enough to you to have fixes, then
> volunteer to take over.
>
> If you don't have that kind of time and you want to warn people about
> abandon-ware that shouldn't be used unless, submit a negative review.
I do try to contact authors and report bugs. I'm not saying "look,
there's some changes
I want done in various modules. Could we appoint people who would do
that for me?"
I think you've got me wrong there.
What I'm saying is maybe we should think of (obviously a volunteering)
way of being
able to fix things easier. A way to check that less things fall
between the chairs.
You don't think we need one? You think we already have one? Alright,
thanks for the input.
> > and there's no way to parse them out in the search ("give me only modules
> > which
> > work on 5.8 and hold the ketchup").
>
> Again, are you talking search.cpan.org or CPAN? Nothing prevents you
> from writing your own search website that merges results from CPAN
> Testers.
True, and while diversity is strength, re-inventing the wheel can also
be redundant.
> >I really think it's not just CPAN that needs
> > revamping, it's the fact that it seems like we've overlooked a
> > bloating module archive
> > that is imperative to the community and as a community I think we need
> > to look into
> > it some more.
> >
> > I'm not bitching, I just think we can improve things a lot.
>
> You are bitching. Moreover, you're complaining that "the community"
> needs to do something and trying to set some direction. But, the
> community in this case is made up of volunteers who write code. A lot
> of the extras you see on search.cpan.org like ratings, dependency map,
> perl/platform version matrix and the discussion forum were made by
> people with an itch to scratch.
>
> So if you have an itch, write some code and see if people like it. Or
> write some text for the FAQ. That's going to be much more effective
> than jawboning people for change.
Again, you think I'm taking "the community" for granted, asking it to
do something
for me. Instead, I'm suggesting and trying to start a debate WITH people to
get their views. I've always said I might be wrong on things and
that's why I would
like to hear what people have to say. And people have replied (some
even personally
to me). That means I'm _not_ bitching, and I think you're taking this
to a different place.
You want to say that things are perfectly fine, or that I'm barking up
the wrong tree?
Okay, comment noted. But I wouldn't go as far as calling it "bitching".
Obviously people scratch their own itches, all I wanted to know is if
someone was
itching there as well. You don't? Cool, sorry for bothering you.
Others do itch there.
Shlomi Fish directed me to the rethinking-cpan list, I'll try and
continue this there.
Thanks.
