On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 3:29 PM sisyphus <sisyphus...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 7:12 PM Sawyer X <xsawy...@cpan.org> wrote: >> >> +1 from me. >> >> I agree with Dan on Dual-Life org. > > > What's so attractive about Dual-Life modules ? > > I have only negative experiences on that front ... waiting for interminably > long periods of time for the maintainer to approve, then to upload a new > version of the module ... just so that changes can be made to the perl core. > Much better, IMO, if p5p can make the changes immediately to the perl source, > if they see fit. > > I guess there must be some argument in support of dual-life. > What is it ?
Having it in p5p core means that both contributors - as well as the dual-life maintainer - are not necessarily able to apply patches. They need to submit them and p5p needs to approve and merge. With the Dual-Life project, we can maintain multiple contributors, like the module maintainer and p5p. I'm not objecting to doing it differently, but it can end up being more convenient for the superset of p5p + non-p5p maintainer.
