Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2009
Re: Perl 5.10.1
From: David E. Wheeler
June 30, 2009 14:06
Re: Perl 5.10.1
Message ID: 7AC88718-0101-4AC2-B63E-D362ADCAF452@kineticode.com
On Jun 30, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Eyeballing perlhist.pod, the rough time between *RC1 and release for
> to 5.8.8 was 7 to 11 days.
> 5.10.0-RC1 to 5.10.1 was 31.
> 5.8.9-RC1 to 5.8.9 34.
> I don't remember the details for 5.10.0, but 5.8.9 hit some
> regressions (some involving CVEs, and not re-introducing them)
> So if 5.10.1 hits the something similar, I doubt it will
> "escape to manufacturing" in the 21 days between now and then.
> Dave isn't doing a talk about 5.10.1 anywhere, so there's no
> motivation of
> "conference driven development" [I can't remember who coined that
Well, one can hope!
>> Why not introduce such deprecations in 1.10.2 and make them go away
>> 5.12? Too much work?
> Well, I don't think that it's written down anywhere outside the list
> archives, but the policy is no new warnings (of which deprecations
> are one
> class) within a stable branch.
Installation warnings are surely different than runtime warnings, no?
But this is a good example of the need for a written deprecation policy.
>> Do we have cpan testers who regularly build from blead and test CPAN
>> modules with it? That way they can notify said authors of any issues.
>> That would be a way to get more CPAN authors involved more quickly. I
>> seem to recall that someone did this for 1.10RC1, but it'd be nice to
>> do it in blead all the time. Continuous testing, that is.
> I don't know.
> I think someone (Slaven?) said that there was a push to test some time
> before 5.10, authors were notified of problems, and many didn't fix
Many did, I expect. I sure as hell did. And there seems to have been
pretty strong response to the warnings sent out to maintainers of dual-
life modules in the last week (it's been ages since I've seen email
from Matt Sergeant!).
> If I remember, I can ask any that I bump into at YAPC::EU