On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:35:23AM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote: > That all sounds fine to me. > > I'll just take EU:M and ::Win32 for the moment then.
EU:M is upstream: blead and Florian Ragwitz is happy to take that - seems like a simpler solution to me. > EU:C can sit where it is until I actually have a chance to apply, or > something better takes it. Same, or I can always take it - currently waiting to find out if Chorny wants to write tests for EUMM's MYMETA bugs to go with his code or if I should fix and test it before attempting an EUMM release. Don't really mind except that I'd prefer rafl or I to you simply because we already have the relevant core bits and the upstream: blead is relatively sane for these dists. Thoughts? -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our Catalyst commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
