Stuff with the Perl Foundation. A couple of patches in the Perl core. A few CPAN modules. That about sums it up.
Seems some folks are taking me to task for having the temerity to upload Bundle::Ovid to the CPAN. That bundle is just a bunch of modules I constantly use but people seem to be frosted that I would (ab)use the CPAN like that. One person wrote "This is not what CPAN is for". Really? What is the CPAN for?
I have to admit, this confuses me. No one seemed to be upset when Simon Cozens started the trend. No one complained when Schwern followed suit. Ask has one. And don't forget Alberto Manuel Brandão Simões, brian d foy and José Alves de Castro (cog). However, I'm the only person getting flack for this.
So, what do you think? Do you think tiny bundles which take up virtually no resources but are extremely helpful to some developers are a bad idea? If you argue "waste of resources", are they your resources? Do you want the Acme:: namespace pulled, too?
It's often been said that a technology proves its worth when it's profitably used in ways the inventors didn't anticipate. That's part of what makes the CPAN great. This is also part of the reason why ideas to "forcibly improve CPAN quality" are constantly shut down. We want to make the CPAN easier for people to contribute, not harder. That's what people are missing.
So go make your personal bundles and put 'em on the CPAN. The next time you do a fresh install of Perl or go to work on a new Perl job, you'll be grateful.
And for some reason, I'm getting weird "error reading from remote server" messages when I try to log in an and comment on the reviews. Gah!
Kwalitee or Quality? (Score:1)
Hm, you could almost consider this as a list of non-core modules that you recommend highly. In my mind that's a better recommendation than "WOW, this module is SO COOL because it ships TWO POD TESTS that couldn't possibly be different on any user machine."
Maybe they didn't notice before (Score:1)
Nah, my guess is that in the "old times" it wasn't as fashionable to watch the recent CPAN uploads every day and rate them immediately. That's why COG, BDFOY, et al. slipped below the radar.
As it is often said: CPAN is what it is because it allows anyone to upload junk, not despite of it. I think it is fine if you upload "vanity" modules/bundles, as long as they
New namespace? (Score:1)
Why 5.8.7? (Score:1)
Re:Why 5.8.7? (Score:2)
D'oh! No. That was auto-generated. Thanks for the catch.
Screw 'em (Score:2)
CPAN thrives BECAUSE of the unfettered uploading of shit, not in spite of it.
--
xoa
Bundle::PerlforHomePages (Score:1)
Re:Bundle::PerlforHomePages (Score:2)
You're right. There's nothing wrong with it. While I can understand why some wouldn't want these on the CPAN, stifling uses we think are inappropriate needlessly raises the bar.
Re:Bundle::PerlforHomePages (Score:2)
Also, I bet people did gripe about the others, and that you just didn't know about the griping.
A few points... (Score:1)
Let me make a few remarks about your recent comments. First of all, Simon Cozens' bundle predates cpanratings as does brian's and probably the others you point out.
So yours drew attention when you uploaded it. (itub already pointed this out in a previous reply.)
I am not singling you out. I don't even know you personally, and don't make presumptions about your character or habits based on a single module. I am only commenting on your contribution to the C
Re:A few points... (Score:2)
Possible it wasn't clear from my post, but I didn't take it as a personal attack against me. You can tell me that all of my modules are awful and I'll know you're talking about my modules. No worries there.
And while I certainly have a different view on this issue, I also haven't made any presumptions about you. You're probably a great person; I just think you're wrong about personal bundles :)
clearly a case of those who need a hobby (Score:2)
Bundles are SDKs (Score:1)
That's the reason http://search.cpan.org/modlist/Bundles [cpan.org] is titled "Bundles (and SDKs)". (Of course that only lists 'registered' bundles, but that's a separate issue.)
I'd like to see many more people uploading bundles defining sets of modules that they use. Even better if the bundles define explicit module versions that are known to work together.
Better still if the bundle definition is managed as part of the configuration m
*Some* Bundles are SDKs (Score:1)
This is a timely thread, as I was just grazing for modules to recommend for our site_perl libs, and wasn't finding kwalitee or ratings terribly helpful. (Kwalittee doesn't even add a point for removing blah blah blah and a.u.thor@ from template POD!)
Using Bundle::* as the real recommendation will be rather more useful, for some of the Bundles. Those bundles that are personal SDK sets (e.g., Bundle::SDK::PAUSEID) are far more useful as "recommendations" than Bundle::ALLBY::PAUSEID, which some of these Bun
Bill
# I had a sig when sigs were cool
use Sig;
Maybe I know what the problem is and what I'll do (Score:1)
Whatever.
I actually gave a lot of thought to uploading Bundle::COG or not. The truth is that it really saves me a lot of time, and it does serve a couple or purposes which I'll not go into.
The thing is:
For some time I've been thinking of uploading a Bundle::SDK::COG (kind of like Simons' Bundle::SDK::SIMON, but with the modules I use the most).
I think now I will.
I'm standing up right nex
A more pertitent question (Score:2)
Saving space? (Score:1)