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 09:26 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > On 05/06/2015 08:03 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> This is something that has bothered me for a while. >> >> We have a lot of standards and guiding principles, but a lot of it is >> all in our heads, wisdom one can only get by talking about it on >> toolchain, and/or breaking things and getting yelled at. >> >> ... >> >> As such, I propose a very rudimentary idea: >> >> Toolchain >> >> This is the top namespace >> >> Toolchain::Standards >> > > First of all +1000 on the idea itself. I want to point out an > alternative to the naming, simply because I have been thinking about > something *very* similar for about 6 months now (and this email may in > fact be the thing that gets me rolling). I would like to call the thread to refocus itself on the subject at hand - currently there is just a handful of things people are actually interested in writing, and really only one (the Toolchain) that is a collaborative effort. As such I propose to not dive too deep into the naming of other stuff we haven't written yet, and focus on how to name the toolchain one alone. I am fine with both: Policy::Toolchain and Policy::Org::Toolchain I think Policy::Project::Toolchain is logically inconsistent.