[cgiapp] Re: CGI::Application mailing list is evolving

[Mark Stosberg]

Thanks for the feedback, Michael.

I'm fairly much in agreement with all your points about the mailing list options.

> + A more common SCM system (not darcs). SVN is popular and tolerable. Git is 
> nice and fast (and with something like github forking and fixing things becomes 
> more a community thing than just patches in an RT ticket).

This is a separate point, since we aren't suggesting changing any SCMs now, but
I'll still address it.

CGI::Application sees a trickle of updates and patches, so much so that I don't
think it matters what SCM the main project uses. If people just send a "diff"
against the latest release, that's likely fine. Most of the action is with
plugin development, and plugin authors are free to choose whichever SCM they
want. I think at least darcs, git and svn are in use.

Catalyst has an alternative model where lots of related projects share a
central code repo. That has some benefits, but a lot of even the plugins are
fairly mature at this point and are not seeing much active development.  For
me, if we were considering changing anything here, this would be a very related
question: Do we move toward centeralizing several sub-projects under one SCM
with shared commit access, or keep going with the decentralized approach?

At this point, it seems like the decentralized approach is working reasonable well,
but I would consider evaluating this again if there was another flurry of active
development.

    Mark

-- 
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
   Mark Stosberg            Principal Developer  
   mark at summersault.com     Summersault, LLC     
   765-939-9301 ext 202     database driven websites
 . . . . . http://www.summersault.com/ . . . . . . . .