BBC smartmatch da4e040f42421764ef069371d77c008e6b801f45 #16310
Comments
From zefram@fysh.orgCreated by zefram@fysh.orgThe smartmatch changes merged in commit Perl Info |
From @andkAlso affected: ETHER/Try-Tiny-0.28.tar.gz -- |
|
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @andkAlso affected: RURBAN/B-Keywords-1.15.tar.gz -- |
From @andkAlso affected: -- |
From @LeontOn Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Zefram <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:
Smart::Match and threads::lite are also affected. Leon |
From @andkAlso affected, found by Slaven: DBAURAIN/Bio-MUST-Drivers-0.173510.tar.gz -- |
From @andkAlso affected: BMORROW/Config-TinyDNS-1.tar.gz -- |
From @eserteAlso affected: * CHRISBR/Test-Mockify-1.0.tar.gz Sorry for any possible duplicates --- the many lists are hard to track. BTW, I stopped my regular 5.27.7 smoker runs and switched back to the Regards, -- Berlin Perl Mongers - http://berlin.pm.org |
From @LeontOn Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Slaven Rezic <slaven@rezic.de> wrote:
IMNSHO this breakage is irresponsible and madness. None of this is I really don't get how to got into this situation. It feels to me like in Leon |
From @jkeenanOn 12/23/2017 07:39 AM, Leon Timmermans wrote:
That seems wise. The data I've been assembling on the CPAN-river-1000
I concur. We are now less than one-month away from the point in the Thank you very much. |
From zefram@fysh.orgLeon Timmermans wrote:
That's neither sensible nor really workable. It would not be sensible Hypothetically, if we did implement dual behaviour, that still wouldn't
If 5.10-style smartmatch is so significantly used that it's not acceptable
It seemed quite obvious how to transition. We determined long ago -zefram |
From @andkAlso affected: LEMBARK/Parallel-Queue-3.6.tar.gz -- |
From @xsawyerxI'll let Leon to respond to the technical details. I want to address the On first blush, it seems like too many things are breaking. On second The most telling email for me on this thread was Slaven saying he I think we need to take a step back, revert this change, and figure out [1] This is currently only a suggestion, but unless someone comes up On 12/23/2017 04:44 PM, Zefram wrote:
|
From @khwilliamsonOn 12/24/2017 10:43 AM, Sawyer X wrote:
+1 , and figure out
|
From @jkeenanOn 12/24/2017 12:43 PM, Sawyer X wrote:
+1 As the data which I have been posting suggests, we already have a lot of Thank you very much. |
From @ribasushiOn 12/24/2017 06:43 PM, Sawyer X wrote:
Give me a fucking break! Is the period between 5.10 and 5.18 "ancient history" enough, for you to What is the end-game here? In a short time you went from "I have no I am not writing this email because I expect you to *change* or because So today, instead of all the positive stuff above, you are an absolute, Please grow a pair and resign. [1] |
From @khwilliamsonOn 12/24/2017 02:49 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
-1 |
From @xenuOn Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:49:34 +0100
While I don't agree with the rest of this post, it's an *extremely* Smartmatch and given/when aren't typical experimental features. They On CPAN alone there are thousands of uses of ~~ and given/when and I'm Huge portion of perl users aren't using anything never than 5.16.3 I think that smartmatch changes should be reverted and we need *much* |
From @rjbs* Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> [2017-12-24T16:49:34]
If you want to have the conversation you're starting in this thread, this is This is not the right tenor to take, starting reasonably with a complaint about "Just anybody can do the job" isn't made any better by tacking on "if they're -- |
From zefram@fysh.orgSawyer X wrote:
If we can't accept this kind of CPAN breakage then we have no way forward -zefram |
From @xsawyerxI do not enjoy you picking the one sentence you want to respond to, Now considering I've resolved to reverting it, what is the point you're Beyond this, as I've said to anyone else (and stand by), if you cannot On 12/24/2017 11:49 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
|
From @xsawyerxOn 12/25/2017 08:21 AM, Zefram wrote:
Any CPAN breakage of this magnitude needs to be weighed against the In this case, there is little loss in not making his change at the As for the slipper slope argument, I think this argument suggests we |
From @LeontOn Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> wrote:
There are a few factors here that dramatically reduce the The first is that the level of breakage in smartmatch creates more problems The second problem is that the switch feature it provides no way to write Thirdly, this process can be made more gradual. Having the 20+ paths that Lastly, what happened to the idea of experimenting on CPAN? So no, I don't think this kind of breakage is acceptable. That doesn't mean Leon |
From @iabynOn Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 10:49:34PM +0100, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
As someone who has been using Perl since 1992, and who has been working on -- |
From @arcSawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> wrote:
+1. There's far too much breakage here for us to countenance releasing -- |
From @arc[Speaking as a moderator] Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> wrote:
Peter, we do not permit personal attacks on perl5-porters. Please take [1] https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/perl/pod/perlpolicy.pod#STANDARDS-OF-CONDUCT -- |
From @ribasushiOn 12/27/2017 12:46 PM, Aaron Crane wrote:
In order for the warning to be acknowledged by its receiver, common The part you quoted *specifically* speaks of the pumpkin's job Please clarify your concerns as a moderator. Cheers |
From @arcPeter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> wrote:
The Standards of Conduct read as follows: * Always be civil. Civility is simple: stick to the facts while avoiding demeaning While civility is required, kindness is encouraged; if you have If the list moderators tell you that you are not being civil, Unacceptable behavior will result in a public and clearly Phrases like "irredeemable failure", "embarrassment", and "feverishly To be clear: I am reaffirming my decision that your behaviour above -- |
From @andk
> Phrases like "irredeemable failure", "embarrassment", and "feverishly > To be clear: I am reaffirming my decision that your behaviour above moderation-- # please learn to look away when you are not needed -- |
From @andk
> Karen Etheridge wrote:
> A contentious change was made before the contentious-changes freeze date. I think we always tried to do the most contentious changes in the early
> smoke-me branches don't do that. smoke-me branches get smoked across The problem to be warnocked have other branches too. I think it's a
> What kind of `smoking' do you imagine here? Multi-platform smoking is You could have asked me to do some preliminary smoking. My capacities But in this case grep.cpan.me would have been sufficient. You most
> I don't see how people have the trouble they describe with merges. We simply trust, that what the perlgit manpage describes as the process, And let me remind you that your argument was "it would have been > Nevertheless, I am now duly informed of the strength of objection to Key is reliability. Everything is fair if you declare your thoughts
> That's an interesting assessment. I was not aware of it being I'm glad Leon started the language-design-process-initiative today, such Thanks, |
From @cpansproutOn Fri, 29 Dec 2017 05:45:45 -0800, zefram@fysh.org wrote:
Let me explain the rationale: Not everybody has the time or the inclination to learn git that thoroughly. For many of us it’s just a tool we put up with when we have to, not a lifestyle. (That last sentence is imprecise. Please don’t waste time picking it apart.) -- Father Chrysostomos |
From zefram@fysh.orgAndreas Koenig wrote:
perlgit doesn't describe rebasing merges as mandatory. It requests
No, it's not just shifting work around. There's a difference, large in -zefram |
From @khwilliamsonOn 12/29/2017 10:30 AM, Zefram wrote:
You are ignorant of all the uses that people use the history for; hence I for example, look at the delta of the history since the last time I I never have thought that the language in perlgit allowed any The ease you say it was to revert seems to me to argue that it would But, I agree with sawyer that there really is no need to this rebase |
From @ilmariZefram <zefram@fysh.org> writes:
While the discussion about reverting the merge was ongoing, I tried If you haven't already, I highly recommend enabling git's 'rerere' - ilmari |
From zefram@fysh.orgKarl Williamson wrote:
No, they're quite different issues. Rebasing a branch with N commits
Well, perlgit still needs to be made clearer. I'll have a go at it -zefram |
From @LeontOn Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> wrote:
I think there is broad support for change, but IMO the main reason Leon |
From @karenetheridgeOn Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Craig A. Berry <craig.a.berry@gmail.com>
|
From @andkHi Marc, I'm ashamed and apologize for this incident. I'm forwarding your mail to P5P and refrain from adding more words. I'll -- -------------------- Start of forwarded message -------------------- On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 06:45:57PM -0500, Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:
I don't know if this is about me, but I just found out that I am clearly None of my recent mails are in any mailing list archive I checked - it's a http://ue.tst.eu/cc99636b1f523f181bcaed8a25a0c553.txt Rules clearly are for other people only, eh? So on the one hand, you (plural) silently block people by moderator abuse But the other hand, you publicly(!) make bold claims about other people Liars. And that's the polite way to put it - the one time I received a In reality, there is no different between you and other forums where In any case, it's bad enough that you can't even be bothered to follow your No, you don't even stop at publicly spreading lies about how everybody has So, does it feel great when you (always plural) make up your own rules and Does it feel great to harass people by sending them mail and inviting them to Does it feel cool making statements such as participation is welcome, and And then you wonder why people don't respect you? You would have to earn it Wow, shame on you. I am not sure you can sink any lower than that - I PS: please note that even if this is a technical glitch and I am only -- -------------------- End of forwarded message -------------------- |
From @csjewellAndreas: I know you meant well, but please review the two threads that end in these two messages: (sorry I don't have URL's for you to use, you should be able to find them with the info I've given) before being too apologetic. I can see why Sawyer X just left him banned, personally. I wouldn't want to have his job. Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:26:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] - fix for Coro (was Re: revert MG consting (Coro -- |
From lannings@gmail.comFWIW, I thought he (mlehmann) was unnecessarily an asshole (as always). On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Curtis Jewell <perl@csjewell.fastmail.us>
|
From @kentfredricOn 5 January 2018 at 12:16, <lannings@gmail.com> wrote:
Please keep your toxic commentary to yourself. Thanks. -- KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
From @andk
> Andreas: > I can see why Sawyer X just left him banned, personally. I wouldn't want to have his job. It is nice from you to have warm feelings for the pumpking. I also have It may turn out that it was not intentional. We must hear what Sawyer -- |
From @andk
> FWIW, I thought he (mlehmann) was unnecessarily an asshole (as Dear moderators, poster is asking for moderation for himself. -- |
From @xsawyerxThis is still under discussion internally between the moderators and Meanwhile, I request that you refrain by any offensive and hurtful On 01/05/2018 01:16 AM, lannings@gmail.com wrote:
|
From lannings@gmail.comOn Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Andreas Koenig <
Very sorry and embarrassed (and unsubscribing) |
From @ap* Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> [2017-12-25 11:02]:
The selective quoting you complained about served the purpose of making Which it was. It seems odd that you would need to ask him what his point is when his Stating this falsehood from your position of authority as the pumpking The concrete harm in this case follows from the fact that legal rather
Beware that merely adopting the outer forms of maturity won’t necessarily I also invite readers of my mail to consider the above quote in light of Regards, |
From @demerphqOn 5 January 2018 at 11:38, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de> wrote:
I checked the definition of "falsehood", which is in English "a lie". I think there is a big difference between "falsehood" and "an Is there any example of Sawyer repeating this claim once he was I am ignoring the rest of your comment because in pretty much any People need to understand that being correct does NOT give one a right Imputing malicious or hostile intent in a technical disagreement or Just about every governing body has rules forbidding what is called in I do not believe that there is a SINGLE person on this list who has So for me, accusing someone of spreading falsehoods, lying, or any cheers, |
From @lizmat
In my dictionary, a “falsehood” is "a state of being untrue”, no intent implied. Liz |
From @demerphqOn 8 January 2018 at 15:24, Elizabeth Mattijsen <liz@dijkmat.nl> wrote:
As far as English goes "falsehood" is not the same thing as "untruth". Just about every dictionary I checked listed "a lie" higher than "an Virtually every reference to "falsehood" is negative. Dictionary.com: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/falsehood noun Synonym Study: Try other Dictionaries as well. falsehood (countable and uncountable, plural falsehoods) (uncountable) The property of being false. quotations Websters: Definition of falsehood 1: an untrue statement : lie Cambridge: falsehood noun UK /ˈfɒls.hʊd/ US /ˈfɑːls.hʊd/ formal [ U ] lying: She doesn't seem to understand the difference between truth and falsehood. [ C ] a lie or a statement that is not correct Even if *you* consider "falsehood" innocuous, most English speakers Accusing someone of spreading falsehoods would, under any Notice that Aristotle used the *countable* form, which in English is The word I think you are thinking of us "untruth" which has much https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/untruth I couldn't find a non-pay OED to check, sorrry. cheers, -- |
From @demerphqAristotle, after some discussion on #p5p I wanted to make clear: 1. I do not think you intended to besmirch SawyersX character and 2. To the extent that you or any others may consider my response to be 3. Of the various synonyms for "falsehood" you might choose, you may 4. To a certain extent I was replying to you because I thought it was 5. No disrespect was intended to you. Sorry if any was taken. Regards, On 8 January 2018 at 14:54, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
-- |
From @iabyn[snip enormous thread about changes to smartmatch which broke CPAN, IIUC, the changes to smartmatch were reverted, so this ticket -- |
From @arcYes — thanks for pointing that out, Dave. I'm marking this ticket resolved. -- |
|
@arc - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
From @xsawyerxOn 04/20/2018 12:44 AM, Dave Mitchell wrote:
I believe so. |
p5pRT
added
BBC
Migrated from rt.perl.org#132594 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT132594$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: