To quote Rafael's longer blog post:
There are many committers and knoledgeable contributors, and they'll probably start reviewing the patches to apply a bit more: avoiding bottlenecks is good. The release process will be documented and distributed (and thanks to Dave Mitchell for having worked a lot on this) and the whole bus factor of Perl 5 will go up. Don't worry, I'll still be around to ensure that the future of Perl 5 is not handed to the marketroids, and to produce the occasional patch.
I hope this addresses your concerns, at least partially. | [reply] |
It does, partially. My question has to do with his absence as it seems effective immediately. How do you protect perl from special interests without a pumpking? Are all patches on hold until another pumpking is found? I can only hope P5P has enough oversight to bridge the immediate gap.
I, too, offer my thanks for his service. My concern is limited to the present.
| [reply] |
How do you protect perl from special interests without a pumpking?
The number of hackers who have direct commit access to the perl source code repository is fairly limited (and limited to trust-worthy people), so the chances of abuse are rather small. And don't forget that we use a version control system, which makes it rather easy for the next pumpking to revert any potential damage.
Also note that the stable 5.10.* branch still has a pumpking, so we're not entirely leader-less.
I can only hope P5P has enough oversight to bridge the immediate gap.
I'm sure they have. I mean the pumpking is not the only sensible core hacker ;-)
| [reply] |