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 :evel ?

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-devlists.rawmode.org
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

* hkclarkgmail.com <hkclarkgmail.com> [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
:evel ?
> 
> 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/&g
t;

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

<quote who="hkclarkgmail.com">
> 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
:evel ?
>
> 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:evel

>
> 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-devlists.rawmode.org
> http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev
>


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

On 10/8/06, Gavin Henry <ghenryperl.me.uk> wrote:
> <quote who="hkclarkgmail.com">
> > 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
:evel ?
> >
> > 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:evel
>

That sounds like a reasonable alternative.  Any other
opinions?

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

* Gavin Henry <ghenryperl.me.uk> [2006-10-09
00:20]:
> Bundle all with Catalyst:evel

Would :evel
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/&g
t;

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

I think we should avoid bundling C::M with C:.  If we
change the manual, 
then we have to re-release C:, which
is unnecessary.  I'd like to separate 
out C::M as its own dist and make it a prereq for C:.  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: 
depend on that.  The dep tree would look like:

Task::Catalyst::Tutorial
  C:evel
    C::Runtime
    C::Manual

Regards,
Jonathan Rockway

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


-- 
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;
_______________________________________________
Catalyst-dev mailing list
Catalyst-devlists.rawmode.org
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

On 10/9/06, Jonathan Rockway <jonjrock.us> wrote:
> I think we should avoid bundling C::M with C:.  If we
change the manual,
> then we have to re-release C:, which
is unnecessary.  I'd like to separate
> out C::M as its own dist and make it a prereq for
C:.
 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:
> depend on that.  The dep tree would look like:
>
> Task::Catalyst::Tutorial
>   C:evel
>     C::Runtime
>     C::Manual
>

Hi Everyone,

I can see the wisdom in having Catalyst::Manual separate
from
Catalyst:evel --
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:evel...
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: 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-devlists.rawmode.org
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev

hkclarkgmail.com wrote:
> On 10/9/06, Jonathan Rockway <jonjrock.us> wrote:
>> I think we should avoid bundling C::M with C:.  If we
change the manual,
>> then we have to re-release C:, which
is unnecessary.  I'd like to separate
>> out C::M as its own dist and make it a prereq for
C:.
 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:
>> depend on that.  The dep tree would look like:
>>
>> Task::Catalyst::Tutorial
>>   C:evel
>>     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-devlists.rawmode.org
http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst-dev