Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2011
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Father Chrysostomos <sprout@cpan.org> wrote: > David Golden wrote: >> In abstract terms, the situation you describe is like a company saying >> "we rely on tool X, but we use whatever version of X ships with OS Y, >> and we regularly upgrade the version of OS Y, too, so the maintainers >> of X should make sure not to break anything when we do that... oh, and >> do that for free, too". > > If you change that last bit to "we are willing to contribute to make > sure nothing breaks", that describes my situation very closely. You personally may be *willing* to do that, but it's still an unreasonable *expectation* for someone else to have. > If the policy changes such that I no longer feel comfortable upgrading > perl, there will be no reason for me to contribute any more. Well, that's the rub. Sometimes things need to break to move forward. E.g. deprecation of ?PATTERN? Sometimes things need to break to make things simpler (and thus easier to maintain). E.g. deprecation of $[ Sometimes things need to break because they were done poorly. E.g. smartmatch Sometimes things need to break because of upstream dependencies. E.g. Unicode 6.0 and the BEL/BELL change I'd be sad to see you stop contributing, but I'd be even more sad to see Perl stop evolving. -- DavidThread Previous | Thread Next