Mailing List Archive: Catalyst: Dev

Catalyst::Manual

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

hkclark at gmail

Oct 8, 2006, 10:51 AM

Post #1 of 9 (2026 views)
Permalink

Catalyst::Manual

Last Saturday on #catalyst-dev, Matt had the suggestion:

12:22 <@mst> how about breaking Catalyst::Manual entirely out
12:22 <@mst> and making it a dependency of ::Devel ?

I think that a good idea... I am of the opinion that it would be
better to have the tutorial together with the rest of Catalyst::Manual
vs. having the tutorial in Task::Catalyst::Tutorial and the rest of
Catalyst::Manual still in Catalyst::Runtime.

I have received some emails pointing out that the URL for the last
copy in SVN is currently broken in the tutorial since T::C:Tutorial
was created... I'm thinking we probably want to finalize the packaging
for Catalyst::Manual pretty soon (or revert back to having everything
in Catalyst::Runtime) so that we don't have a broken link out there.

Thoughts?

Let me know if I can help. I haven't built a "Task" package before,
but if someone is willing to help me, I'm glad to work on it.

Thanks,
Kennedy

_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev [at] lists
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

pagaltzis at gmx

Oct 8, 2006, 11:15 AM

Post #2 of 9 (1958 views)
Permalink

Re: Catalyst::Manual [In reply to]

* hkclark [at] gmail <hkclark [at] gmail> [2006-10-08 20:00]:
> Last Saturday on #catalyst-dev, Matt had the suggestion:
>
> 12:22 <@mst> how about breaking Catalyst::Manual entirely out
> 12:22 <@mst> and making it a dependency of ::Devel ?
>
> I think that a good idea...

Me too. Would allow doc updates to cycle quicker without being
tied to code releases. And I agree that putting the tutorial in
there with the rest of the lot would probably be better. The
fewer distros to install, the better.

Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev [at] lists
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

ghenry at perl

Oct 8, 2006, 3:17 PM

Post #3 of 9 (1960 views)
Permalink

Re: Catalyst::Manual [In reply to]

<quote who="hkclark [at] gmail">
> Last Saturday on #catalyst-dev, Matt had the suggestion:
>
> 12:22 <@mst> how about breaking Catalyst::Manual entirely out
> 12:22 <@mst> and making it a dependency of ::Devel ?
>
> I think that a good idea... I am of the opinion that it would be
> better to have the tutorial together with the rest of Catalyst::Manual
> vs. having the tutorial in Task::Catalyst::Tutorial and the rest of
> Catalyst::Manual still in Catalyst::Runtime.
>
> I have received some emails pointing out that the URL for the last
> copy in SVN is currently broken in the tutorial since T::C:Tutorial
> was created... I'm thinking we probably want to finalize the packaging
> for Catalyst::Manual pretty soon (or revert back to having everything
> in Catalyst::Runtime) so that we don't have a broken link out there.
>
> Thoughts?

Bundle all with Catalyst::Devel

>
> Let me know if I can help. I haven't built a "Task" package before,
> but if someone is willing to help me, I'm glad to work on it.
>
> Thanks,
> Kennedy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Catalyst-dev mailing list
> Catalyst-dev [at] lists
> http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev
>

_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev [at] lists
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

hkclark at gmail

Oct 8, 2006, 4:27 PM

Post #4 of 9 (1956 views)
Permalink

Re: Catalyst::Manual [In reply to]

On 10/8/06, Gavin Henry <ghenry [at] perl> wrote:
> <quote who="hkclark [at] gmail">
> > Last Saturday on #catalyst-dev, Matt had the suggestion:
> >
> > 12:22 <@mst> how about breaking Catalyst::Manual entirely out
> > 12:22 <@mst> and making it a dependency of ::Devel ?
> >
> > I think that a good idea... I am of the opinion that it would be
> > better to have the tutorial together with the rest of Catalyst::Manual
> > vs. having the tutorial in Task::Catalyst::Tutorial and the rest of
> > Catalyst::Manual still in Catalyst::Runtime.
> >
> > I have received some emails pointing out that the URL for the last
> > copy in SVN is currently broken in the tutorial since T::C:Tutorial
> > was created... I'm thinking we probably want to finalize the packaging
> > for Catalyst::Manual pretty soon (or revert back to having everything
> > in Catalyst::Runtime) so that we don't have a broken link out there.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Bundle all with Catalyst::Devel
>

That sounds like a reasonable alternative. Any other opinions?

_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev [at] lists
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

jon at jrock

Oct 9, 2006, 12:06 AM

Post #5 of 9 (1935 views)
Permalink

Re: Catalyst::Manual [In reply to]

I think we should avoid bundling C::M with C::D. If we change the manual,
then we have to re-release C::D, which is unnecessary. I'd like to separate
out C::M as its own dist and make it a prereq for C::D. I think this is what
mst was suggesting on the IRC channel, although I could be wrong.

I'd also like to keep TCT separate, since the tutorial is separate logically
from the manual, and TCT brings in some other tasty bits, like the complete
sample app, and all the plugins (etc.) mentioned in the tutorial.

So I vote for the simple change of making C::M its own dist, and making C::D
depend on that. The dep tree would look like:

Task::Catalyst::Tutorial
C::Devel
C::Runtime
C::Manual

Regards,
Jonathan Rockway

On Sunday 08 October 2006 17:17, Gavin Henry wrote:
>
> Bundle all with Catalyst::Devel
>

--
package JAPH;use Catalyst qw/-Debug/;($;=JAPH)->config(name => do {
$,.=reverse qw[Jonathan tsu rehton lre rekca Rockway][$_].[split //,
";$;"]->[$_].q; ;for 1..4;$,=~s;^.;;;$,});$;->setup;

pagaltzis at gmx

Oct 9, 2006, 3:05 AM

Post #6 of 9 (1942 views)
Permalink

Re: Catalyst::Manual [In reply to]

* Gavin Henry <ghenry [at] perl> [2006-10-09 00:20]:
> Bundle all with Catalyst::Devel

Would ::Devel releases still be cut for even if there were only
doc updates? If not, the docs should be in a separate distro.

Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev [at] lists
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

hkclark at gmail

Oct 10, 2006, 5:29 AM

Post #7 of 9 (1952 views)
Permalink

Re: Catalyst::Manual [In reply to]

On 10/9/06, Jonathan Rockway <jon [at] jrock> wrote:
> I think we should avoid bundling C::M with C::D. If we change the manual,
> then we have to re-release C::D, which is unnecessary. I'd like to separate
> out C::M as its own dist and make it a prereq for C::D. I think this is what
> mst was suggesting on the IRC channel, although I could be wrong.
>
> I'd also like to keep TCT separate, since the tutorial is separate logically
> from the manual, and TCT brings in some other tasty bits, like the complete
> sample app, and all the plugins (etc.) mentioned in the tutorial.
>
> So I vote for the simple change of making C::M its own dist, and making C::D
> depend on that. The dep tree would look like:
>
> Task::Catalyst::Tutorial
> C::Devel
> C::Runtime
> C::Manual
>

Hi Everyone,

I can see the wisdom in having Catalyst::Manual separate from
Catalyst::Devel -- there are pros & cons on both sides. However, it
seems to me that the Manual and the Tutorial should be together... as
Aristotle points out: the fewer things people have to install the
better (which is one reason I like the idea of just sticking it in
Catalyst::Devel... yes that could lead to "extra" updates to that
module, but: 1) it cuts down on the things people have to install &
track, 2) it's devel vs. production/runtime, so people shouldn't mind
the changes, 3) it's not like we release docs all that often, so it's
not like it should be that frequent of an event, 4) C::D is small, so
it would be easy to add it there). I could be wrong, but I think most
newcomers would expect the tutorial and the manual to all be together.

My vote is that we try to come to consensus pretty soon so we can get
the link in the current tutorial fixed. I have a "sort of work
aroun": in place, but it's far from ideal.

Thanks,
Kennedy

_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev [at] lists
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

pagaltzis at gmx

Oct 10, 2006, 6:38 AM

Post #8 of 9 (1950 views)
Permalink

Re: Catalyst::Manual [In reply to]

* hkclark [at] gmail <hkclark [at] gmail> [2006-10-10 14:35]:
> I could be wrong, but I think most newcomers would expect the
> tutorial and the manual to all be together.

Sure, and that’s why it’s being proposed that C::D depend on
C::M.

Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev [at] lists
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

dbix-class at trout

Oct 10, 2006, 4:23 PM

Post #9 of 9 (1946 views)
Permalink

Re: Catalyst::Manual [In reply to]

hkclark [at] gmail wrote:
> On 10/9/06, Jonathan Rockway <jon [at] jrock> wrote:
>> I think we should avoid bundling C::M with C::D. If we change the manual,
>> then we have to re-release C::D, which is unnecessary. I'd like to separate
>> out C::M as its own dist and make it a prereq for C::D. I think this is what
>> mst was suggesting on the IRC channel, although I could be wrong.
>>
>> I'd also like to keep TCT separate, since the tutorial is separate logically
>> from the manual, and TCT brings in some other tasty bits, like the complete
>> sample app, and all the plugins (etc.) mentioned in the tutorial.
>>
>> So I vote for the simple change of making C::M its own dist, and making C::D
>> depend on that. The dep tree would look like:
>>
>> Task::Catalyst::Tutorial
>> C::Devel
>> C::Runtime
>> C::Manual

It's a thorny question, but I think that's the best option.

--
Matt S Trout Offering custom development, consultancy and support
Technical Director contracts for Catalyst, DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact
Shadowcat Systems Ltd. mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for more information

+ Help us build a better perl ORM: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ +

_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-dev [at] lists
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads