Re: Documenting best practices and the state of ToolChain guidelines using CPAN and POD

On 6 May 2015 at 20:44, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) <[email protected]>
wrote:

> 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.
>

My disagreement there is those are not the only organisations that exist,
and others may wish to have their name.

As such, an overproliferation of Policy::<> makes it messier than otherwise.

An example might be:

 Policy::Org::Debian

or

  Policy::Org::ShadowCat

I /may/ be amenable to agree that P5P and Toolchain are more important than
that and they deserve to be allowed to not need the "Org::" bit.

But outside a very short list, they should have Org::


-- 
Kent

*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL