perl.bootstrap

perl.bootstrap https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/ ... Copyright 1998-2025 perl.org Fri, 09 May 2025 06:37:42 +0000 ask@perl.org perl6-meta opened, bootstrap closed. by Ask Bjoern Hansen perl6-meta is now open and it's former incarnation, bootstrap@perl.org, will be closed. - ask -- ask bjoern hansen - <http://www.netcetera.dk/~ask/> more than 70M impressions per day, <http://valueclick.com> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1212.html Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:55:05 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Chaim Frenkel >>>>> "JP" == John Porter <jdporter@min.net> writes: JP> The rules by which these policies would be specified could be arbitrarily JP> complex; in particular, the L<> rule could specify alternative behavior JP> when different output translators are in effect. I don't think that the pod itself should specify _how_ the output should look. Rather it should be giving some clues as to the nature of the mark up. (=use RFC would specify (well I don't have a positive value) that an L<> is not a man page.) Another piece of input that would actully define the textual (or bit wise) values of what markup is finally to look like. <chaim> -- Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. chaimf@pobox.com +1-718-236-0183 https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1211.html Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:13:57 +0000 new list: perl6-meta@perl.org by Ask Bjoern Hansen Hi, I've created perl6-meta@perl.org which will take over the discussions currently on bootstrap. The subscription list WILL NOT be transferred to the new list, but perl6-all is subscribed of course. If you are not at perl6-all you might want to subscribe to perl6-meta by sending mail to perl6-meta-subscribe@perl.org. The new list will be closed for postings for a few days. Then I'll close the bootstrap list and open perl6-meta for postings. - ask -- ask bjoern hansen - <http://www.netcetera.dk/~ask/> more than 70M impressions per day, <http://valueclick.com> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1210.html Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:08:07 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Larry Wall John Porter writes: : The only suggestions made so far about what the DTD would specify are: : : 1. what sections (head1) would be required; and, by analogy, which would : be forbidden. And possibly restrictions on section order. : 2. how the L<> tag decorates the link. : : The rules by which these policies would be specified could be arbitrarily : complex; in particular, the L<> rule could specify alternative behavior : when different output translators are in effect. Most of the heuristics currently applied by the various pod2xxx filters should be abstracted out into a policy file of some sort. For instance, only in the Perl documentation should $1 assume C<$1>. (If even there.) Larry https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1209.html Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:30:07 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by John Porter Chaim Frenkel wrote: > >>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <larry@wall.org> writes: > > LW> : I thought he meant using =use in the .pod to indicate which style sheet to > LW> : use, so an RFC would begin with something like "=use RFC", a manpage type > LW> : document would begin with "=use Man", etc. > > LW> That's what I was trying to say. :-) > > So this would be a two (or more?) level specification. One that specifies > the translation (to the final medium) and an inner one that specifies > what the markups mean? (Is that what a DTD is?) The only suggestions made so far about what the DTD would specify are: 1. what sections (head1) would be required; and, by analogy, which would be forbidden. And possibly restrictions on section order. 2. how the L<> tag decorates the link. The rules by which these policies would be specified could be arbitrarily complex; in particular, the L<> rule could specify alternative behavior when different output translators are in effect. -- John Porter We're building the house of the future together. https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1208.html Wed, 23 Aug 2000 06:29:22 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Bradley M. Kuhn Larry Wall wrote: > John Porter writes: > : Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > : > Nathan Torkington wrote: > : > > Why not just L<RFC21> ? It's shorter. > : > > : > The main thing I have been struggling with is (to quote perlpod(1)): > : > L<name> manual page > : > whereas: > : > L<name/"sec"> section in other manual page > : > > : > Thus, I didn't think we'd want to pollute the man page space with our RFC's, > : > but I did think it might be possible that there would be a "perl6-RFCs" man > : > page, with sections for each RFC. > : > : I think we can safely presume that the pod-to-foo translators will have > : been locally hacked to account for the RFC-ish nature of the documents. > : IOW, that L<RFC1> will be correctly translated into > : <a href="/rfc/1.html">RFC1</a> or some such. Based on the discussion of this thread, I think L<RFCNN> is the right approach, instead of my convoluted system. :) I didn't do a new patch for rfc-format.pod and rfc-sample.pod. Ziggy, if you need one to make your life easier, let me know. -- Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1207.html Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:35:36 +0000 Re: RFC format by Bradley M. Kuhn Nathan Torkington wrote: > Michael G Schwern writes: > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 07:05:49PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote: > > > Ziggy, want to patch the sample RFC and the RFC format document? > > > You can apply Schwern's patch at the same time. > > > > Patch? Did I patch something? > > No, my mind was addled from the crack I've apparently been smoking, as > I had you confused with Bradley Kuhn. I think Michael is now sufficiently insulted. ;) Perhaps it's because we both have long hair. ;) -- Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1206.html Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:33:13 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Chaim Frenkel >>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <larry@wall.org> writes: LW> : I thought he meant using =use in the .pod to indicate which style sheet to LW> : use, so an RFC would begin with something like "=use RFC", a manpage type LW> : document would begin with "=use Man", etc. LW> That's what I was trying to say. :-) So this would be a two (or more?) level specification. One that specifies the translation (to the final medium) and an inner one that specifies what the markups mean? (Is that what a DTD is?) <chaim> -- Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. chaimf@pobox.com +1-718-236-0183 https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1205.html Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:20:19 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Larry Wall Buddha Buck writes: : At 12:15 PM 8/22/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote: : > >>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <larry@wall.org> writes: : > : >LW> Chaim Frenkel writes: : > : >LW> : Shouldn't these policies be external to the pod itself. These seems like : >LW> : an appropriate spot for a pod style sheet. : > : >LW> That's what I was trying to say. : > : >Hmm, then where would the =use go? Or were you thinking of =use as some : >mechanism of passing options to the style sheet? : : I thought he meant using =use in the .pod to indicate which style sheet to : use, so an RFC would begin with something like "=use RFC", a manpage type : document would begin with "=use Man", etc. That's what I was trying to say. :-) Larry https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1204.html Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:44:51 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH","REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Buddha Buck At 12:15 PM 8/22/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote: > >>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <larry@wall.org> writes: > >LW> Chaim Frenkel writes: > >LW> : Shouldn't these policies be external to the pod itself. These seems like >LW> : an appropriate spot for a pod style sheet. > >LW> That's what I was trying to say. > >Hmm, then where would the =use go? Or were you thinking of =use as some >mechanism of passing options to the style sheet? I thought he meant using =use in the .pod to indicate which style sheet to use, so an RFC would begin with something like "=use RFC", a manpage type document would begin with "=use Man", etc. ><chaim> >-- >Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. >chaimf@pobox.com >+1-718-236-0183 https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1203.html Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:21:28 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Chaim Frenkel >>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <larry@wall.org> writes: LW> Chaim Frenkel writes: LW> : Shouldn't these policies be external to the pod itself. These seems like LW> : an appropriate spot for a pod style sheet. LW> That's what I was trying to say. Hmm, then where would the =use go? Or were you thinking of =use as some mechanism of passing options to the style sheet? <chaim> -- Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. chaimf@pobox.com +1-718-236-0183 https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1202.html Tue, 22 Aug 2000 09:15:44 +0000 Re: RFC format by Nathan Torkington Michael G Schwern writes: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 07:05:49PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote: > > Ziggy, want to patch the sample RFC and the RFC format document? > > You can apply Schwern's patch at the same time. > > Patch? Did I patch something? No, my mind was addled from the crack I've apparently been smoking, as I had you confused with Bradley Kuhn. Sorry, Nat https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1201.html Tue, 22 Aug 2000 08:35:31 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Larry Wall Chaim Frenkel writes: : >>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <larry@wall.org> writes: : : LW> I'd say it's a flaw in pod that you can't import a policy like that with : LW> some sort of "=use" declaration. : : Shouldn't these policies be external to the pod itself. These seems like : an appropriate spot for a pod style sheet. That's what I was trying to say. Larry https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1200.html Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:54:46 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by John Porter Larry Wall wrote: > John Porter writes: > : > : I think we can safely presume that the pod-to-foo translators will have > : been locally hacked to account for the RFC-ish nature of the documents. > : IOW, that L<RFC1> will be correctly translated into > : <a href="/rfc/1.html">RFC1</a> or some such. > > I'd say it's a flaw in pod that you can't import a policy like that with > some sort of "=use" declaration. I'll do the RFC, if no one has yet. -- John Porter https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1199.html Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:47:57 +0000 Re: RFC format by Michael G Schwern On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 07:05:49PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote: > Ziggy, want to patch the sample RFC and the RFC format document? > You can apply Schwern's patch at the same time. Patch? Did I patch something? -- Michael G Schwern http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ schwern@pobox.com Just Another Stupid Consultant Perl6 Kwalitee Ashuranse Cheating is often more efficient. - Seven of Nine https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1198.html Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:56:53 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Chaim Frenkel >>>>> "LW" == Larry Wall <larry@wall.org> writes: LW> I'd say it's a flaw in pod that you can't import a policy like that with LW> some sort of "=use" declaration. Shouldn't these policies be external to the pod itself. These seems like an appropriate spot for a pod style sheet. Let the L<> be a pointer. The stylesheet would determine the translation. <chaim> -- Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. chaimf@pobox.com +1-718-236-0183 https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1197.html Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:20:42 +0000 Re: It's August the 18th! by Nathan Torkington Bradley M. Kuhn writes: > I think perl6-meta@perl.org should not inherent the bootstrap subscription > list. However, I also believe that posting should probably be turned off > for a few days after its creation to give people time to move. I agree. Ask, please create perl6-meta, but close the list for one day. Two days later, close bootstrap and open perl6-meta. Thanks, Nat https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1196.html Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:26:25 +0000 Re: RFC format by Nathan Torkington Mark-Jason Dominus writes: > RFC should have a section that addresses the feasibility of > translating perl5 to perl6 code if the proposed change is adopted. > This section should be required. I agree. Ziggy, want to patch the sample RFC and the RFC format document? You can apply Schwern's patch at the same time. Nat https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1195.html Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:08:35 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES","STATUS" sections by Dave Storrs On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote: > Bradley M. Kuhn writes: > > > * Standardize the STATUS section, which contains one line of data that > I'd been picturing the lifetime of discussion as finite. Rather than [...] > and the RFC represents their best thinking. This would mean an extra > 'Frozen' status. > > I'm not sure how realistic freezing an RFC is, though. I want it > because I suspect long-running discussions of providing diminishing > returns, but I know enough about myself to also wonder whether this > isn't a personal quirk. Input requested. Personally, I tend to agree; long discussions get less useful over time. Another reason to want to freeze RFCs is that it is not realistically possible for them to read the entire discussion history of each RFC that they might want to comment on...these lists are *way* too high-traffic. Marking something as "done" would be a great help. Dave https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1194.html Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:26:11 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Larry Wall John Porter writes: : Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: : > Nathan Torkington wrote: : > > Why not just L<RFC21> ? It's shorter. : > : > The main thing I have been struggling with is (to quote perlpod(1)): : > L<name> manual page : > whereas: : > L<name/"sec"> section in other manual page : > : > Thus, I didn't think we'd want to pollute the man page space with our RFC's, : > but I did think it might be possible that there would be a "perl6-RFCs" man : > page, with sections for each RFC. : : I think we can safely presume that the pod-to-foo translators will have : been locally hacked to account for the RFC-ish nature of the documents. : IOW, that L<RFC1> will be correctly translated into : <a href="/rfc/1.html">RFC1</a> or some such. I'd say it's a flaw in pod that you can't import a policy like that with some sort of "=use" declaration. Larry https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1193.html Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:34:35 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by John Porter Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Nathan Torkington wrote: > > Why not just L<RFC21> ? It's shorter. > > The main thing I have been struggling with is (to quote perlpod(1)): > L<name> manual page > whereas: > L<name/"sec"> section in other manual page > > Thus, I didn't think we'd want to pollute the man page space with our RFC's, > but I did think it might be possible that there would be a "perl6-RFCs" man > page, with sections for each RFC. I think we can safely presume that the pod-to-foo translators will have been locally hacked to account for the RFC-ish nature of the documents. IOW, that L<RFC1> will be correctly translated into <a href="/rfc/1.html">RFC1</a> or some such. -- John Porter https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1192.html Mon, 21 Aug 2000 06:29:24 +0000 Re: A procmail rule to filter perl.org messages. by JVromans Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@uk.sun.com> writes: > Jacob Davies wrote: > > > Here's what I came up with for a first pass at it: > > > > LOGFILE=$HOME/.procmail-log > > MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail > > VERBOSE=on > > > > :0: > > * ^X-Mailing-List: contact \/(.*)-help > > $MATCH > > [snip] > > > If someone has a finer-tuned rule than this, excellent, send it on in! > > Here's what I use: > > PERL_LIST='(perl|bootstrap|scripts)[^@,;= ]*' > :0 Wh: .perl-lists.lock > * $ ^TO_\/${PERL_LIST}@perl\.org > * MATCH ?? ^^\/[^@]+ > | formail -D 8192 .perl.msgid > :0 e: > perl-lists/$MATCH Perl power to the people! use Mail::Procmail; pm_init(); pm_deliver("perl-lists/$1") pm_gethdr("x-mailing-list") =~ /(\S+)-help\@perl.org/i; Alternatively, pm_deliver("perl-lists/$1") if pm_gethdr("x-mailing-list-name") =~ /^(\S+)/; would suffice, thanks to Ask adding the X-Mailing-List-Name header. -- Johan https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1191.html Mon, 21 Aug 2000 02:54:19 +0000 Re: A procmail rule to filter perl.org messages. by Alan Burlison Jacob Davies wrote: > Here's what I came up with for a first pass at it: > > LOGFILE=$HOME/.procmail-log > MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail > VERBOSE=on > > :0: > * ^X-Mailing-List: contact \/(.*)-help > $MATCH [snip] > If someone has a finer-tuned rule than this, excellent, send it on in! Here's what I use: PERL_LIST='(perl|bootstrap|scripts)[^@,;= ]*' :0 Wh: .perl-lists.lock * $ ^TO_\/${PERL_LIST}@perl\.org * MATCH ?? ^^\/[^@]+ | formail -D 8192 .perl.msgid :0 e: perl-lists/$MATCH This has the advantage of eliminating duplicates as well. Alan Burlison https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1190.html Mon, 21 Aug 2000 02:15:28 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Bradley M. Kuhn > Bradley M. Kuhn writes: > > L<perl6-RFCs/"$NUMBER">: $TITLE > > > > Where the ": $TITLE" part is optional Nathan Torkington wrote: > Why not just L<RFC21> ? It's shorter. The main thing I have been struggling with is (to quote perlpod(1)): L<name> manual page whereas: L<name/"sec"> section in other manual page Thus, I didn't think we'd want to pollute the man page space with our RFC's, but I did think it might be possible that there would be a "perl6-RFCs" man page, with sections for each RFC. Basically, I thought L<RFC21> was Bad Forum (TM). But, I am not a POD hacker. Later on, I ran into this problem, again to quote perlpod(1): · Translators will mostly add wording around a L<> link, so that `L<foo(1)>' becomes "the foo(1) manpage", for example (see pod2man for details). Thus, you shouldn't write things like `the L<foo> manpage', if you want the translated document to read sensibly. So, L<RFC21> will expand to "The RFC21 manpage" in pod2man. Then, I started using: L<RFC 21|perl6-RFCs/"21"> which is very annoyingly too long! I don't know any way around these problems. Can a POD-person perhaps speak up and make a suggestion? > > Status can be exactly one of the following states > > (subject to additional possible states, of course): > > > > In-Discussion > > Superseded-by: L<perl6-RFCs/"$NUMBER"> > > Approved-by: $NAME $EMAIL > > Rejected-by: $NAME $EMAIL > > Defunct > I'd been picturing the lifetime of discussion as finite. Rather than go > infinitely over old ground, at some point the RFC would be frozen. This > means that the interested parties debated everything they could, and the > RFC represents their best thinking. This would mean an extra 'Frozen' > status. Sounds ok to me. > I'm not sure how realistic freezing an RFC is, though. I want it because > I suspect long-running discussions of providing diminishing returns, but I > know enough about myself to also wonder whether this isn't a personal > quirk. Input requested. We don't need to have "Frozen" be binding permanently. "Frozen" can just be a codeword for: "not likely to be discussed again without a really good reason". Thus, "Frozen" could be migrated back to "In-Discussion" if someone makes a good case for it. (Think of it in terms of a code freeze---often, there are bug fixes after a freeze, but never new development). I envisioned "Approved-by:" and "Rejected-by:" as "no fundamental changes". A rejected RFC would have to be rewritten as a new RFC to get discussed again, and approved RFCs would only change for sake of verbosity and clarifications. Also, don't forget about Simon's "Withdrawn-by" suggestion (I believe that's in my most recent patch). > Status should probably be metadata in the (poorly-named) VERSION > section, rather than a separate heading. I agree, but can VERSION get renamed if we add status to it, or does already too much depend on that name? -- Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1189.html Sun, 20 Aug 2000 01:30:45 +0000 Re: It's August the 18th! by Bradley M. Kuhn Nathan Torkington wrote: > Should -meta inherit bootstrap's subscription list, or should it be > new? I think perl6-meta@perl.org should not inherent the bootstrap subscription list. However, I also believe that posting should probably be turned off for a few days after its creation to give people time to move. -- Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1188.html Sun, 20 Aug 2000 01:16:47 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH","REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Peter Scott At 05:27 PM 8/18/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote: >BI'm not sure how realistic freezing an RFC is, though. I want it >because I suspect long-running discussions of providing diminishing >returns, but I know enough about myself to also wonder whether this >isn't a personal quirk. Input requested. I agree totally. Sooner or later (not much later IMHO), the point is reached where people are (a) repeating arguments they've made several times before, to try and make their view win, and (b) tossing out half-baked and half-hearted ideas just for something to do. IMHO the -language group is going to get there within 2 weeks. Once you see the RFC "Perl should be more like COBOL" you'll know you should have pulled the plug earlier :-) Any process without a deadline will take forever. -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1187.html Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:00:05 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Nathan Torkington Bradley M. Kuhn writes: > I suggest, so that better linking can be provided, that we use something > like this: > > L<perl6-RFCs/"$NUMBER">: $TITLE > > Where the ": $TITLE" part is optional > > This way, if someone writes a POD parser module that can generate nice > HTML (or other link-able output) from RFC PODs, links can be added > automatically without guessing. Why not just L<RFC21> ? It's shorter. > * Standardize the STATUS section, which contains one line of data that > indicates the status. Status can be exactly one of the following states > (subject to additional possible states, of course): > > In-Discussion > Superseded-by: L<perl6-RFCs/"$NUMBER"> > Approved-by: $NAME $EMAIL > Rejected-by: $NAME $EMAIL > Defunct I'd been picturing the lifetime of discussion as finite. Rather than go infinitely over old ground, at some point the RFC would be frozen. This means that the interested parties debated everything they could, and the RFC represents their best thinking. This would mean an extra 'Frozen' status. I'm not sure how realistic freezing an RFC is, though. I want it because I suspect long-running discussions of providing diminishing returns, but I know enough about myself to also wonder whether this isn't a personal quirk. Input requested. Status should probably be metadata in the (poorly-named) VERSION section, rather than a separate heading. > I hope you like my suggestions. The patch is attached. I do like them. Let's work out the above details and then make it so. Nat https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1186.html Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:29:44 +0000 Re: It's August the 18th! by Nathan Torkington Simon Cozens writes: > iii) It is the deadline for someone to come up with a real timeline > for Perl 6 based on Skud's draft. Fun! Nobody had any objections to the draft, so the draft becomes the real one. There are still some unspecified dates for the far distant future in the draft. I'll unilaterally decide those: Vendor liaison begins January 1st 2001 with the alpha release. We work with vendors and begin the porting process. Vendor liaison doesn't end. The beta release ends with the final release. The final release will be on (he picks a date approx. 18 months from the start of the project) 1 January 2002. Remember, the further into the future one peers, the less reliable the crystal ball is. So I fully expect these dates to be changed as we get further along the process. Hopefully they'll be moved forward. Nat https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1185.html Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:05:49 +0000 Re: It's August the 18th! by Nathan Torkington Bradley M. Kuhn writes: > I think that <bootstrap@perl.org> is still serving a useful > service---namely, it is a place where meta-discussion on the RFC process can > happen. Yes, I was letting it live to see what kind of traffic it got. I've come to realize that those who wanted a meta list were right. > I am all for taking <bootstrap@perl.org> away, but I think it should be > replaced with <perl6-rfc-meta@perl.org> or something of that ilk. Yes, I now want to take down bootstrap and replace it with a new list perl6-meta@perl.org. The name reflects the change of purpose: we've gotten started, this is now a place for ongoing refinement of the process. Should -meta inherit bootstrap's subscription list, or should it be new? I currently think not, because those involved the initial process of bootstrapping may not be those interested in the ongoing meta-discussions. > And, BTW, have you had a chance to look at my proposed changes to > the RFC sample and format? Yes. I'll reply to your latest message in that thread. Nat https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1184.html Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:02:22 +0000 Re: KOMODO [was : I'm a lurker too ...] by Mike Lacey Will Komodo be a commercial product? ----- Original Message ----- From: "raptor" <raptor@unacs.bg> To: <bootstrap@perl.org>; "Perl-WEB" <perl-win32-web@listserv.ActiveState.com> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 8:32 PM Subject: Re: KOMODO [was : I'm a lurker too ...] > > > >3. Visual Perl. Just like Visual Basic and Delphi, but its Perl and > runs > > > >almost everywhere, not just windows.(I know ActiveState is working on a > > > >product called Visual Perl, but I'm note sure this will be just like VB > > > >or if it will run on non-windows platforms.) > > > > > > perl6-internals for any hooks this'll need, perl6-language for the > > > perl-visible bits, and a group of volunteers. Strictly speaking it's not > a > > > perl 6 core thing. (Writing portable windowing code across all the > > > platforms perl runs on would be.... interesting :) > > > > > > > ]- ActiveState is working on IDE (called Komodo) that will be based on > > MOZILLA, so it should run on many platforms :") > > ***********snip******************* > > from iVAN : > > is there planned date for release of beta or something, snapshots etc.... > > We hope to do a beta release in October. We will probably do snapshots > sometime before that. > > Cheers, > > --david ascher > ***********snip******************* > ===== > iVAN > raptor@unacs.bg > ===== > https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1183.html Fri, 18 Aug 2000 14:14:11 +0000 Re: It's August the 18th! by Bradley M. Kuhn Simon Cozens wrote: > ii) It is now exactly two weeks since bootstrap should have been shut down, > but this has still not happened. SHAME! I think that <bootstrap@perl.org> is still serving a useful service---namely, it is a place where meta-discussion on the RFC process can happen. I am all for taking <bootstrap@perl.org> away, but I think it should be replaced with <perl6-rfc-meta@perl.org> or something of that ilk. gnat, what's your opinion? And, BTW, have you had a chance to look at my proposed changes to the RFC sample and format? -- Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1182.html Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:01:21 +0000 It's August the 18th! by Simon Cozens This means four things: i) It is now exactly one week until I leave this country. Hooray! ii) It is now exactly two weeks since bootstrap should have been shut down, but this has still not happened. SHAME! iii) It is the deadline for someone to come up with a real timeline for Perl 6 based on Skud's draft. Fun! iv) It's time to schedule the YAPC::Europe Perl6 BOF. We can at least make this happen. How does the Sunday afternoon sound? I have no idea of the current schedule, and neither does the web site, so I'm taking a guess. Does anyone know the schedule well enough to comment? -- 10. The Earth quakes and the heavens rattle; the beasts of nature flock together and the nations of men flock apart; volcanoes usher up heat while elsewhere water becomes ice and melts; and then on other days it just rains. - Prin. Dis. https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1181.html Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:34:01 +0000 perl5 complaints list - status by horos all: This is going to take longer than anticipated. I haven't forgotten but its been queued on top of a pretty massive work deadline that has imposed itself on me. If someone wants to take over the complaints that I've accumulated so far, step forward, otherwise I'm hoping to be done approx 9/1. Ed https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1180.html Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:14:10 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Bradley M. Kuhn https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1179.html Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:59:29 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by David L. Nicol It's like all the RFC authors are each a node in a neural net --- hey, we are! https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1178.html Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:26:20 +0000 Re: A procmail rule to filter perl.org messages. by JVromans [Quoting Jacob Davies, on August 16 2000, 13:54, in "A procmail rule to f"] > I got tired of adding a procmail rule for each new @perl.org mailing list, > so I made a procmail rule that can automatically filter them. > [...] The procmail \/ > regex marker and $MATCH only seem to be able to break off the right hand > side of a matched expression, there's no equivalent of $1 that I could see. Exactly for this reason I finally decided to dump procmail and write an alternative. It's called Mail::Procmail and available on CPAN. http://search.cpan.org/search?module=Mail%3A%3AProcmail (And yes, I _was_ heavily insprired by Simon Cozen's Mail::Audit.) > If someone has a finer-tuned rule than this, excellent, send it on in! This is the relevant section from my filter: for ( pm_gethdr("x-mailing-list"), pm_gethdr("list-post"), pm_gethdr("mailing-list"), pm_gethdr("x-loop"), ) { my ($topic, $host); if ( ($topic, $host) = /($wordpat)@($wordpat)/i ) { if ( $host eq "perl.org" ) { $topic = "perl6-bootstrap" if lc eq "bootstrap"; $topic = "perl-" . $topic unless $topic =~ /^perl/; } $topic =~ s/-help$//; } pm_deliver(maillist($topic)) if defined $topic; } -- Johan https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1177.html Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:04:06 +0000 Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by skud On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 07:34:51PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > > * Standardize the STATUS section, which contains one line of data that > indicates the status. Status can be exactly one of the following states > (subject to additional possible states, of course): > > In-Discussion > Superseded-by: L<perl6-RFCs/"$NUMBER"> > Approved-by: $NAME $EMAIL > Rejected-by: $NAME $EMAIL > Defunct RFCs are not approved or rejected. The author may withdraw them, however. Superseded is a good idea, though. > * Addition of a REQUIRES section, which is a list of RFCs, one per line. > This section indicates that this RFC is useless if the listed RFC(s) are > not approved. > > * Addition of a "CONFLICTS WITH" section, which is a list of RFCs, one per > line. This section indicates that this RFC is in direct conflict with > the listed RFC(s), and that it is impossible to approve this RFC if any > one of the listed RFCs are approved. I like these ideas, too. K. -- Kirrily Robert -- <skud@netizen.com.au> -- http://netizen.com.au/ Open Source development, consulting and solutions Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000 Phone: +61 3 9614 0949 Fax: +61 3 9614 0948 Mobile: +61 410 664 994 https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1176.html Wed, 16 Aug 2000 23:11:41 +0000 RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections by Bradley M. Kuhn https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1175.html Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:35:00 +0000 A procmail rule to filter perl.org messages. by Jacob Davies I got tired of adding a procmail rule for each new @perl.org mailing list, so I made a procmail rule that can automatically filter them. Here's what I came up with for a first pass at it: LOGFILE=$HOME/.procmail-log MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail VERBOSE=on :0: * ^X-Mailing-List: contact \/(.*)-help $MATCH assuming your mail goes into $HOME/Mail in Berkeley mailbox format. I'm no procmail wizard, but this works for me. Unfortunately it also names the mailboxes "bootstrap-help", "perl6-language-help" etc. The procmail \/ regex marker and $MATCH only seem to be able to break off the right hand side of a matched expression, there's no equivalent of $1 that I could see. This has the disadvantage that if you subscribe to non-perl.org mailing lists that send an X-Mailing-List: header that looks like the perl.org ones, those will start getting filtered too. You could change the match to: * ^X-Mailing-List: contact \/(.*)-help@perl.org but then all the filenames would have @perl.org on the end. If someone has a finer-tuned rule than this, excellent, send it on in! I deal with having magically-appearing mailboxes with Mutt by having a line like this: mailboxes ! mbox `echo Mail/*` in my .muttrc, so that new mailing lists show up without my having to add them by hand. -- Jacob Davies jacob@well.com https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1174.html Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:20:34 +0000 Re: RFC thoughts and guidelines by skud (reply-to set to bootstrap) On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:36:47AM -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote: >On this matter, should something like this be a (meta) RFC? > > Guidelines for Developing Changes for Perl 6 (v0.1). There's nothing to stop you writing an RFC on whatever you like :) However, there's nothing making anyone implement or follow the guidelines you set out, so an RFC phrased as yours is will probably not actually go anywhere. More useful might be an "approach" type RFC saying "Perl 6 should take this approach", and referring to RFCs which you believe are related by merit of following that approach :) K. -- Kirrily Robert -- <skud@netizen.com.au> -- http://netizen.com.au/ Open Source development, consulting and solutions Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000 Phone: +61 3 9614 0949 Fax: +61 3 9614 0948 Mobile: +61 410 664 994 https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.bootstrap/2000/08/msg1173.html Wed, 16 Aug 2000 01:02:41 +0000