-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 560
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
remove Pod::Parser from the core distribution #13194
Comments
From @rjbsWe have been working (slowwwly) for years to remove Pod::Parser from the core https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=85442 Once that is done, we will need to update the known problems file for the That should get done by perl 5.20 so we can fully remove Pod::Parser in perl -- |
From @rjbsIn the event that we are unable to get patches into Pod::Checker to switch it to Pod::Simple, we -- |
@rjbs - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @cpansproutOn Mon Sep 02 19:50:21 2013, rjbs wrote:
You say ‘we will have to’, but is Pod::Parser really that bad that we In other words, why go to great lengths to remove it from core when that -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @rjbsOn Mon Sep 02 21:36:26 2013, sprout wrote:
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 -- |
From @cpansproutOn Tue Sep 03 06:10:46 2013, rjbs wrote:
Yes, sorry, I did misread it. But my response was only meant to be -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @xdgOn Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Ricardo SIGNES
We're blocked on a patch not being applied since May? :-( I suggest setting a hard deadline for application of the patch and (I nominate mst to handle volunteer/PAUSE wrangling, given his talents David -- |
From @jkeenanOn Tue Sep 03 09:43:17 2013, xdg@xdg.me wrote:
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. |
From @rjbsOn Tue Feb 18 18:39:52 2014, jkeenan 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. -- |
From gottreu@gmail.comOn Feb 18, 2014 8:58 PM, "Ricardo SIGNES via RT" <perlbug-followup@perl.org>
As I haven't seen any horses, I will take a swing at this. |
From @rjbs* Brian Gottreu <gottreu@gmail.com> [2014-02-24T16:33:00]
You will win my thanks, and a round of tacos and drinks. -- |
From @khwilliamsonOn 2/24/2014 6:49 PM, Ricardo Signes wrote:
There is a version of podcheck that I thought rjbs was using that I |
From gottreu@gmail.comVersion 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? |
From @rjbs* Brian Gottreu via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> [2014-03-05T01:13:29]
I suggest putting it in podcheck.t for now. If it turns out that it seems -- |
From @tonycozOn Tue Mar 04 22:13:29 2014, gottreu wrote:
Hi Brian, Have you had time to work on this? Otherwise I'll take a poke at it. Tony |
From @SmylersRicardo SIGNES writes:
Karl Williamson has heroically achieved this (in RT #116467). However, perlpodspec is still promoting Pod::Parser in a couple of This one can be addressed by simply changing the module name: Authors of Pod formatters/processors should make every effort to avoid But this one is trickier: In parsing Pod, a notably tricky part is the correct parsing of What's the equivalent place in Pod::Simple that would serve as an Smylers |
From @khwilliamsonOn 05/31/2016 07:30 AM, Smylers wrote:
Good catch
Would you like to submit a patch for this? If so, I guarantee it will
This one is tricky because the code in Pod::Simple/BlackBox.pm that # Are you really sure you want to read this code? So I don't know, I'd be ok with leaving the Pod::Parser reference in
|
From @khwilliamsonOn Tue, 31 May 2016 09:56:37 -0700, public@khwilliamson.com wrote:
In lieu of a patch from Smylers, I pushed one myself for the first reference to Pod::Parser in perlpodspec as 67e5e059984f24c6c80a0f8278e40ce418d15c8b. I left the reference in that said to refer to it if you're writing a replacement. This is because of the comments in Pod::Simple that are designed to scare people away. Pod::Parser will not be removed in 5.26, as there is still a dependency on it. So, I'm moving this ticket to block 5.28 instead. The dependency is that it is the only way to extract just the pod from a larger file. I made significant headway in reimplementing that in Pod::Simple, but shelved it to work on higher priority things for 5.26. I intend to finish it up once 5.26 is in code freeze. -- |
From @jkeenanOn Mon, 09 Jan 2017 05:47:27 GMT, khw wrote:
Karl, do you have a battle plan for the removal of Pod-Parser from core now that 5.26.0 is out the door? Are there parts that could be delegated to other people? Thank you very much. |
From @khwilliamsonOn 06/01/2017 07:22 PM, James E Keenan via RT wrote:
I did not get to this during the code freeze. It involves deep work in It is #3 on my todo list right now, and I should get to it in a few weeks. |
From @khwilliamsonOn Thu, 01 Jun 2017 20:59:47 -0700, public@khwilliamson.com wrote:
I did not get to it until recently. I have a branch where podcheck.t no longer relies on Pod::Parser.. However, it turns out there are other dependencies on this module, and I'm unsure what to do. Besides plain Pod::Parser, the distribution includes and there are 3 tests that check for these: If I remove these tests, everything passes. Shall I remove these? -- |
From @cpansproutOn Sat, 19 May 2018 14:41:40 -0700, khw wrote:
Considering they begin with lib/Pod/, they probably belong in the Pod-Parser distribution (and predate the reorganization of the modules in 5.12 or so). Do they duplicate tests that Pod-Parser has? If so, they can go. If not, perhaps a patch to Pod-Parser could be submitted. (I admit I did not even look at them.) I hope you are not intending to merge your branch until after 5.28 is released. -- Father Chrysostomos |
From @khwilliamsonThis has finally been fixed by c57372c |
@khwilliamson - Status changed from 'open' to 'pending release' |
I'm just gonna point out, but this was removed without:
The horse is bolted on that already, and we only noticed when we hit the first package that had this problem. But there should be a system or reminder to prevent this happening in future. |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#119439 (status was 'pending release')
Searchable as RT119439$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: