Re: Documenting best practices and the state of ToolChain guidelines using CPAN and POD
[email protected] (Peter Rabbitson)
| Newsgroups | perl.cpan.workers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 05/06/2015 10:44 AM, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 09:26:03AM +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote: >> Therefore I am urging you to think broader and go for: >> >> Policy - short blurb what is this about >> Policy::Org - short sub-blurb what is this about >> Policy::Org::P5P - pumpkin maitaned >> Policy::Org::Toolchain - joint maintainership >> Policy::Project >> Policy::Project::Moose >> Policy::Project::DBIC >> Policy::Author >> Policy::Author::AUTARCH - explicitly reserved (and non-squatable, PAUSE >> admins take action when needed) >> Policy::Author::RIBASUSHI >> > Just thinking that the "Org" intermediate bit is not really needed > (and ugly). The said organizations are big/important enough that they > naturally float above the "Project" level. The only reason I included ::Org because it leaves the door open to "small, unimportantorganizations" before they become (potentially) big/important. This is just to explain my thinking, I am not married to the idea of ::Org:: > Would documents like David's CONTRIBUTING.mkdn document that he includes in > most of his distributions fit under Policy::Author::DAGOLDEN? That's the thing - does the distzilla cabal have a desire to unite behind a set of best practices? Then it belongs under ::Org::Dzil::...