From: michael libby Date: 2002-10-30T11:24:24+09:00 Subject: Re: good link to read as we contemplate RAA, RAA.succ, et al -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 29 October 2002 20:13, dblack@candle.superlink.net wrote: > Then again, if you're writing an HTML parser that does what > HTML::Parser does, but does it (in your opinion) better, or faster, or > whatever, then it's potentially a pain to have to find a synonym or > near-synonym to use as a name. But isn't this what version numbers are for? If the existing HTML::Parser were unmaintained you'd just up the major version number and post -- the older one sit out there and get moldy. If I'm not mistaken that's how CPAN handles it (whereas the current RAA does not handle name collisions, except to reject the new entry). If it is less than optimal to have multiple entries with the same number but different version numbers... RAA is a central database/repository, there is still a final authority who can decide that an existing module should be deprecated in favor of a new one. I'm a big fan of the way CPAN handles a lot of stuff... in fact, the only thing that ever concerns me is that I have no clue about quality with some modules. A good archive should probably include some way for users to indicate feedback in terms of a rating and perhaps comments to other users. -michael Michael C. Libby x@ichimunki.com http://www.ichimunki.com/ http://www.ichimunki.com/public_key.txt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9v0Kl4ClW9KMwqnMRAmCrAKCANK0CJazGyKuaDIvxip3fkjijtwCfXeN2 cJIYCEHRdtnwmiwXEqjMJro= =nDHv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----