Re: Documenting best practices and the state of ToolChain guidelines using CPAN and POD
[email protected] (Kent Fredric)
| Newsgroups | perl.cpan.workers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAATnKFAWU6ipsHjC6kYz+dTHXyJ+gPzRgLnk9pt2rzTWCpzJiw@mail.gmail.com> |
On 6 May 2015 at 21:08, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) <[email protected]> wrote: > Going back to the original proposal, the distrinction between "Org" > and "Project" seems actually minimal. So, the split would really be > between "authors" and "organizations". And actually, Project::Perl and > Project::Toolchain doesn't sound that bad either. > Also, another way to think of it is Orgs are essentially external to CPAN, while projects are essentially internal. For instance, P5P and Toolchain have influence on stuff on CPAN, but they're not exactly namespaces or systems of specific named sets of code on CPAN. There's no modules named "Toolchain" or "P5P" Whereas all the examples of Projects listed lie firmly on perl module name boundaries, Moose is a package name, and there are moose packages. DBIC is essentially an abbreviation for a package name, and it pertains to specific packages tailored to that package name. That's a pretty distinct line. =) -- Kent *KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL