That's a very selective reading of things. I explained my goals for Perl 5. I asked Rafael specific questions and offered to discuss technical details and to accept any correction for mistakes I've made.
It is not selective reading. It is a conclusion. I carefully stayed out of all release related discussions. It is way too complex. And, to use Jarkko's words, I did not want to get dragged into the vortex. I'm a long time perl contributor, and to keep a healthy state of mind, I try to restrict to the focus areas that were assigned to me: perl configuration and hints. I try to do my best and am always open to suggestions, but when given this responsibility, I can also - within reason - sometimes say "no", which I occasionally did. I hope with enough explanation.
What I understand from all the information that I did read, and I admit that I do not have the full picture, you and rgs did not agree. No problem with that. More people disagree, see Gerard Goossen: he started Kurilla because he did not like the way the rest of perl5 was moving on. But he gave back patches to the `real' perl5 based on his findings, and there has never been an argument/quarrel. Gerard stopped complaining and started something else.
What should I have done differently?
In my perception you went too far in trying to prove that rgs way of dealing with the job he accepted was wrong. Time and time again. I was there at the meeting where Hugo told the perl5 porters that he wanted someone else to take over, and Raphael volunteered. There are not enough people around that have all the qualities that he has. You may dislike some of them, but I for sure do not have most of them. The most important of them all: overview. The community accepted him as Pumpking and perl5 went on.
Personally I will miss this constant factor. He might be more conservative than you or me (I also would make 5.12 have all the features be default), but those were his decisions based on a lot of thought. I never complained. I might have tried to convince him, but not beyond pressure points. e.g. I really tried to keep the "err" keyword.
An alternative road for you could have been to put rejected patches on CPAN, add some docs and tell why it is/was such a great idea. I have maintained the defined-or patch, which was officially rejected for the 5.8.x track, since 5.8.0 and all my perl builds included it. The quality was good enough for it to be documented in the perl5 core.
I do not ask apologies. Shit like this happens. Certainly when volunteers are involved. Maybe none of this would have happened if an eye-to-eye meeting could have been arraanged to talk this all through. Real-life discussions/debates - a.o.t. e-mail/irc/blog/... - quite often help to make people understand eachothers standpoints.
In reply to Re^4: When comment turns into disaster
by Tux
in thread When comment turns into disaster
by Tux
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |