remove Pod::Parser from the core distribution

[p5pRT]

Migrated from rt.perl.org#119439 (status was 'pending release')

Searchable as RT119439$

[p5pRT]

From @rjbs

We have been working (slowwwly) for years to remove Pod​::Parser from the core
perl distribution. At this point, I believe the only blocker is Pod​::Checker.
Pod​::Checker is waiting to be converted through the application of this patch​:

  https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=85442

Once that is done, we will need to update the known problems file for the
podchecker test and we can add "use deprecate" to Pod​::Parser. (Or so I
think.)

That should get done by perl 5.20 so we can fully remove Pod​::Parser in perl
5.22.

--
rjbs

[p5pRT]

From @rjbs

In the event that we are unable to get patches into Pod​::Checker to switch it to Pod​::Simple, we
will have to consider ejecting Pod​::Checker and renaming the Pod​::Checker-with-Pod​::Simple
branch into Pod​::Simple​::Checker, or something of the sort, in order to move forward with this. I
would rather not have it come to that.

--
rjbs

[p5pRT]

@rjbs - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

[p5pRT]

From @cpansprout

On Mon Sep 02 19​:50​:21 2013, rjbs wrote​:

In the event that we are unable to get patches into Pod​::Checker to
switch it to Pod​::Simple, we
will have to consider ejecting Pod​::Checker and renaming the
Pod​::Checker-with-Pod​::Simple
branch into Pod​::Simple​::Checker, or something of the sort, in order
to move forward with this. I
would rather not have it come to that.

You say ‘we will have to’, but is Pod​::Parser really that bad that we
have to take measures that would be confusing to users?

In other words, why go to great lengths to remove it from core when that
time could be spent fixing core bugs? :-)

--

Father Chrysostomos

[p5pRT]

From @rjbs

On Mon Sep 02 21​:36​:26 2013, sprout wrote​:

On Mon Sep 02 19​:50​:21 2013, rjbs wrote​:

In the event that we are unable to get patches into Pod​::Checker to
switch it to Pod​::Simple, we
will have to consider ejecting Pod​::Checker and renaming the
Pod​::Checker-with-Pod​::Simple
branch into Pod​::Simple​::Checker, or something of the sort, in order
to move forward with this. I
would rather not have it come to that.

You say ‘we will have to’, but is Pod​::Parser really that bad that we
have to take measures that would be confusing to users?

You left out the word after "to," which was "consider."

We can worry about whether it's that bad or that hard to do once we're forced to consider. For
now, it is only a worry on the horizon.

--
rjbs

[p5pRT]

From @cpansprout

On Tue Sep 03 06​:10​:46 2013, rjbs wrote​:

On Mon Sep 02 21​:36​:26 2013, sprout wrote​:

On Mon Sep 02 19​:50​:21 2013, rjbs wrote​:

In the event that we are unable to get patches into Pod​::Checker
to
switch it to Pod​::Simple, we
will have to consider ejecting Pod​::Checker and renaming the
Pod​::Checker-with-Pod​::Simple
branch into Pod​::Simple​::Checker, or something of the sort, in
order
to move forward with this. I
would rather not have it come to that.

You say ‘we will have to’, but is Pod​::Parser really that bad that
we
have to take measures that would be confusing to users?

You left out the word after "to," which was "consider."

We can worry about whether it's that bad or that hard to do once we're
forced to consider. For
now, it is only a worry on the horizon.

Yes, sorry, I did misread it. But my response was only meant to be
tongue-in-cheek. :-)

--

Father Chrysostomos

[p5pRT]

From @xdg

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10​:25 PM, Ricardo SIGNES
<perlbug-followup@​perl.org> wrote​:

We have been working (slowwwly) for years to remove Pod​::Parser from the core
perl distribution. At this point, I believe the only blocker is Pod​::Checker.
Pod​::Checker is waiting to be converted through the application of this patch​:

https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=85442

We're blocked on a patch not being applied since May? :-(

I suggest setting a hard deadline for application of the patch and
release to CPAN with the alternative being that a volunteer co-maint
will then be found and granted permissions to make it happen.

(I nominate mst to handle volunteer/PAUSE wrangling, given his talents
at both. :-)

David

--
David Golden <xdg@​xdg.me>
Take back your inbox! → http​://www.bunchmail.com/
Twitter/IRC​: @​xdg

[p5pRT]

From @jkeenan

On Tue Sep 03 09​:43​:17 2013, xdg@​xdg.me wrote​:

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10​:25 PM, Ricardo SIGNES
<perlbug-followup@​perl.org> wrote​:

We have been working (slowwwly) for years to remove Pod​::Parser from
the core
perl distribution. At this point, I believe the only blocker is
Pod​::Checker.
Pod​::Checker is waiting to be converted through the application of
this patch​:

https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=85442

We're blocked on a patch not being applied since May? :-(

This indicates that CPAN #85442 has been marked Resolved​:

https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=85442#txn-1265804

What are the next steps needed for this RT?

Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan

[p5pRT]

From @rjbs

On Tue Feb 18 18​:39​:52 2014, jkeenan wrote​:

What are the next steps needed for this RT?

The new Pod​::Checker emits different strings for the errors it finds, based on Pod​::Simple rather than Pod​::Parser's warnings. Our pod exceptions (the known errors file) must be updated.

Our podcheck test adds some tests of its own, written toward Pod​::Parser rather than Pod​::Simple. Those tests need updating.

Unless someone on a white horse rides in (please oh please), I will probably be doing this work at the QA Hackathon.

--
rjbs

[p5pRT]

From gottreu@gmail.com

On Feb 18, 2014 8​:58 PM, "Ricardo SIGNES via RT" <perlbug-followup@​perl.org>
wrote​:

The new Pod​::Checker emits different strings for the errors it finds,
based on Pod​::Simple rather than Pod​::Parser's warnings. Our pod
exceptions (the known errors file) must be updated.

Our podcheck test adds some tests of its own, written toward Pod​::Parser
rather than Pod​::Simple. Those tests need updating.

Unless someone on a white horse rides in (please oh please), I will
probably be doing this work at the QA Hackathon.

As I haven't seen any horses, I will take a swing at this.

[p5pRT]

From @rjbs

* Brian Gottreu <gottreu@​gmail.com> [2014-02-24T16​:33​:00]

As I haven't seen any horses, I will take a swing at this.

You will win my thanks, and a round of tacos and drinks.

--
rjbs

[p5pRT]

From @khwilliamson

On 2/24/2014 6​:49 PM, Ricardo Signes wrote​:

* Brian Gottreu <gottreu@​gmail.com> [2014-02-24T16​:33​:00]

As I haven't seen any horses, I will take a swing at this.

You will win my thanks, and a round of tacos and drinks.

There is a version of podcheck that I thought rjbs was using that I
thought was updated to use these; it certainly was updated to work with
Marc Green's changes

[p5pRT]

From gottreu@gmail.com

Version 1.70 of Pod​::Checker removed the 'hyperlink' method which podcheck.t uses. Where should that required functionality go? Back in to Pod​::Checker without using Pod​::Hyperlink (or whatever caused the removal), into podcheck.t, or even up into Pod​::Simple?

[p5pRT]

From @rjbs

* Brian Gottreu via RT <perlbug-followup@​perl.org> [2014-03-05T01​:13​:29]

Version 1.70 of Pod​::Checker removed the 'hyperlink' method which podcheck.t
uses. Where should that required functionality go? Back in to Pod​::Checker
without using Pod​::Hyperlink (or whatever caused the removal), into
podcheck.t, or even up into Pod​::Simple?

I suggest putting it in podcheck.t for now. If it turns out that it seems
generally useful, it can be ported upward later.

--
rjbs

[p5pRT]

From @tonycoz

On Tue Mar 04 22​:13​:29 2014, gottreu wrote​:

Version 1.70 of Pod​::Checker removed the 'hyperlink' method which
podcheck.t uses. Where should that required functionality go? Back
in to Pod​::Checker without using Pod​::Hyperlink (or whatever caused
the removal), into podcheck.t, or even up into Pod​::Simple?

Hi Brian,

Have you had time to work on this?

Otherwise I'll take a poke at it.

Tony