Re: deprecating L<"Section">

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 10:52:51AM -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> 
> >> Gosh, I didn't know Pod-Simple included those.  I'd much prefer it be core, to
> >> keep the reference separate from an implementation.  (I wouldn't object to
> >> Pod-Spec, but I don't think we want to give core one more thing to sync up.)
> > 
> > Core doesn't mind, as long as there's an answer.
> > 
> > (The revised layout of ext, dist and cpan makes this a lot easier. Whilst said
> > files *are* currently under pod/ they don't have to stay there. I believe that
> > I can patch it so that the core's build automatically grabs them from the
> > appropriate dist dropped into cpan/, and which point it's just as easy to keep
> > canonical as every other directory in cpan/)
> 
> So are you saying that it should remain in the Pod::Simple distribution?

No, I'm saying that giving "core one more thing to sync up" is not an issue
that should affect the decision making.

I don't have an opinion on where the right place *is*. I'm perfectly happy for
it to be in distributions on CPAN, if that's the right place.

Although I note (without investigating)

http://perl5.git.perl.org/perl.git/blob/HEAD:/Porting/Maintainers.pl#l1295

	# XXX these two files correspond to similar ones in blead under
	# pod/, but the blead ones have newer changes, and also seem to
	# have been in blead a long time. I'm going to assume then that
	# the blead versions of these two files are authoritative - DAPM
	'EXCLUDED'	=> [ qw( lib/perlpod.pod lib/perlpodspec.pod ) ],


so where ever it *does* end up, it looks like there are forks to heal, to get
back to one true document.

Nicholas Clark