Can Canary::Stability please be retired?

[Adam Weinberger]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 5:20 AM Marc Lehmann <schmorp at schmorp.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 05:09:02PM -0600, Adam Weinberger <adamw at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > I'd like to strongly urge you to retire Canary::Stability. You
>
> Canary::Stability is the single most life-saving thing for me. It's the
> module that enables me to still contribute modules. Retiring it is not
> only an enourmous amount of work, it also needs extremely good reasons. It
> would also likely mean to make my modules private use for me and my
> company, so this is a step that needs to be weighed extremely carefully.
>
> > maintain some very important modules (such as EV), and urging users to
> > replace their Perl installations with 5-year-old versions is both
> > unreasonable and harmful.
>
> Are you urging users to do that? I don't, and neither does
> Canary::Stability. Whats the source for this "urging"?
>
> > FreeBSD has had to go to lengths to fix Canary::Stability.
>
> Oh really? They never reported any need for fixing to me, nor has anybody
> else. I also tried hard to give distribution builders all options they need
> for automated builds and so on, using the same mechanism as other modules for
> interactivity and automation.
>
> So, if freebsd needs any "fixing" then maybe they should talk to me about it?
>
> > really are married to the module, can you please restrict it to
> > objectively checking for actual critical environment things,
>
> Thast is exactly what it is doing. If you think otherwise, if you don't
> tell, I can't do anything about it, no?
>
> > remove the personal opinions?
>
> I am not aware of any personal opinions in that module, at leats not in
> any critical way. Can you be more specific?
>
> But, if I get you right, the concern FreeBSD has is that it needs fixing
> opinions of free software contributors, is that it?
>
> I always hads the utmost respect for FreeBSD, but hearing of such
> orwellian desires makes me very sad. Hopefully this is just a
> misunderstanding?
>
> Looking at your e-mail address, are you representing FreeBSD in any
> capacity in this matter? Do you have a source for your claim that FreeBSD
> considers fixing opinions important?
>
> > The worst possible scenario for our user-base is that they follow the
> > instructions that module gives to them.
>
> That seems to be your personal and unsubstantiateed opinion - what harm do
> you think could come of people following any instructions you think that
> module gives?
>
> Now, looking at your mail, you have not written anything useful -
> certainly nothing that can be acted upon, other than an orwellian appeal
> to fix people's opinions. That is extreemly scary if it represents the
> FreeBSD project as a whole (and I might indeed be prompted to inquire
> about this because it is hard to believe that FreeBSD is now the thought
> police), but certainly not in any way or shape a reason to retire a useful
> perl module.

Ok. Well, thanks for taking the time. I'm not sure how you went from
"please limit the module to objective checks" to "FreeBSD wants to
control your thoughts," and I doubt anything I say is going to change
your mind. I sincerely regret sending the email.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
adamw at adamw.org // adamw at FreeBSD.org
https://www.adamw.org