Mailing List Archive: ntperl subscription considered harmful?

Hi,

I'd like to propose that we do one of the following:

* unsubscribe perl5-porters from ntperl. If specific people are
interested in the discussion there, perhaps they could subscribe
directly.

* create something like p5p-announce, for announcement of:
- new releases
- unofficial patches
- new modules
I realize this is proposing work for someone; I don't want to add
to Danny's list. We're gonna have majordomo set up here soon, at
which point I'd offer to provide such a list through us.

* do nothing. This would be fine with me, i'll just unsubscribe from
p5p, and set up crontabs to watch appropriate ftp sites :-)

My time for perl stuff is unfortunately extremely limited; I'd like to be
able to spend what time I can give on things like building new versions
on the weird machines we have here, rather than (IMHO off-topic :-)
discussions on the usefulness or otherwise of NT's POSIX subsystem.

We seem to have moved away from the original purpose of p5p.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, since p5p is obviously providing
a useful forum for all kinds of interesting stuff.

caffeinatedly,
neilb

> From: Neil Bowers <neilb@khoral.com>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose that we do one of the following:
>
> * unsubscribe perl5-porters from ntperl. If specific people are
> interested in the discussion there, perhaps they could subscribe
> directly.

I believe the positive effect of subscribing perl5-porters to ntperl (or
perl-win32 as it is now) can already be seen in the latest release of the
port. The collective weight of opinion of perl5-porters is a force to be
reckoned with.

As I've said before I believe that it's _vital_ that the Perl for Windows
port is compatible and does not drift away from the standard distribution.

Sadly, human nature being what it is many people who would have a useful
opinion on an NT issue would not bother to subscribe to perl-win32.

> * create something like p5p-announce, for announcement of:
> - new releases
> - unofficial patches
> - new modules
> I realize this is proposing work for someone; I don't want to add
> to Danny's list. We're gonna have majordomo set up here soon, at
> which point I'd offer to provide such a list through us.

New releases should be posted to comp.lang.perl along with new modules.
New unofficial patches will, after 5.002, turn into new releases much
faster. A comp.lang.perl.modules group would be handy though.

> * do nothing. This would be fine with me, i'll just unsubscribe from
> p5p, and set up crontabs to watch appropriate ftp sites :-)
>
> My time for perl stuff is unfortunately extremely limited; I'd like to be
> able to spend what time I can give on things like building new versions
> on the weird machines we have here, rather than (IMHO off-topic :-)
> discussions on the usefulness or otherwise of NT's POSIX subsystem.

Access to unix/posix style functions for a perl port is an important
issue. The manner in which it has been discussed is rather unfortunate.

I'll make this point one more time (in this message :-). Even if you never
use a Win32 system in your life, the perl-win32 port *will* affect you.
It will affect all of us, especially if it's not as compatible as possible.
I have *much* better things to do with my time but I believe it's important.

Or, you could implement a mail filter (procmail and mailagent are popular)
which could delete perl-win32 mail :-)

> We seem to have moved away from the original purpose of p5p.
> This is not necessarily a bad thing, since p5p is obviously providing
> a useful forum for all kinds of interesting stuff.

The original purpose was *exactly* for porting perl5 to other platforms.

> caffeinatedly,
> neilb

:-)

Tim.