On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 06:10:07PM -0800, Kan Liu wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Matt S Trout <m...@shadowcat.co.uk> wrote: > > All of these modules seem like they could have sensible names. > > > > My sincere apologies that my naming scheme assaulted your sensibility. > I've tried to correct them after Brian pointed out the problem. In my > defense, I did take time to think and rethink about their names before > re-packing them up and uploading them. I guess they still don't quite > cut the mustard :) > > > If you want to dump them into a top level namespace, might I suggest > > KAN:: please? Util:: is meaningless and I really don't want people to > > see that as a precedent. > > I understand your frustration about the Util namespace "pollution." > But there must have existed a rationale for allowing it into existence > in the first place. And if it's a deadly sin to upload to Util, > perhaps there could be some sort of preventive measure on PAUSE at the > time the modules are uploaded. (Not that I don't appreciate your > concerns and input here.)
CPAN has no control on uploading it, and it was never "allowed into existence". Util:: is -not- a sanctioned top level namespace and we don't want it to be. There is no central control of CPAN - all we can do is ask people to behave reasonably. This is me, asking you to behave reasonably. > In my previous exchange with Brian, I communicated my interpretation > on "Util" as a sort of a community garden for odd/small modules that > don't quite desserve a top level namespace their own. 'KAN' has just a > bit too much ego/hubris for my taste :) Util:: is far more egotistical than KAN:: - KAN:: is "i'm not sure what the best name for this is so I'm going to use my CPAN id to make a unique proposed name" - Util:: is "I'm going to pollute a different global namespace on CPAN rather than think about which one is right". > > > > Please, *please* stop uploading into Util:: and let's talk about *good* > > names for your code. I really want it on CPAN, but the current names are > > really not a good idea. > > > > I've definitely received the message, and it's loud and clear. I > promise that no more modules (from me) will be uploaded to Util from > now on. Please also delete and rename the existing ones. The more modules in Util:: the more likely it is that somebody in future will make the same mistake of thinking that it's somehow a "sanctioned" namespace. > I thought I had remedied my previous mistakes according to Brian's > pointers (very informative and constructive), and would like them to > stay the way they are now if it's not too big of a deal. I would, honestly, automatically ignore any module starting Util:: on a CPAN search since if the author doesn't care enough to pick a real name I don't trust them to care enough to have written useful code. So I'd suggest that both for our piece of mind, and for a better, happier life for your contributions, you rename your existing modules. > Of course, if the 2nd level namespace and/or the module names > themselves still suck badly, I'm willing to hear suggestions. Once you've deleted the Util:: versions, please feel free to ask this list or me directly for naming suggestions with a description of the modules' purposes. Your current descriptions mostly just seem to be slight expansions of the names you've already chosen which makes it hard to give you useful suggestions. -- 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.
