develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2000

Re: [ID 20000330.052] Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.)

Ilya Zakharevich
March 31, 2000 14:47
Re: [ID 20000330.052] Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.)
Message ID:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 01:49:29PM -0800, Gurusamy Sarathy wrote:
> I set about making a 5.6.0 release because:
>   * Nobody but me was working to make the now experimental features
>     stable

I understand your frustration about this fact.  However, allow me to
note that IMO this may be explained in part by your ways to treat
patches sent to p5p.  

Say, now I have very little interest in participation in Perl

>   * I ran out of time a _long_ time ago (you wouldn't believe the
>     amount of "real work" that has slipped just so I can herd the Perl
>     cats into reasonable shape for a release)

There is no way to make a bullet-proof whatever.whatever.0 release.
However, since we know it is *very much* flawed, having it mentioned
in the announcement would look more proper.

>   * It's been too long since there has been a proper release, and
>     what we had had enough bug fixes to be a proper release on its
>     own merits

This is a double-edge argument.  Since it was so long, having an extra
couple of months of a public beta (even if marked as 5.6.0!) would not
make things any more delayed.

>   * I entertain vague hopes that perhaps putting out a release will
>     spur contributions to address the experimental features

Definitely.  We on p5p have a clear understanding of the (mis)quality
of 5.6.0, so will not deploy it as if it were a stable release.  So
*for us* an early release is a plus: more testing, more bug reports etc.

However, it does not look fair wrt poor sysadms who are pressed by
lusers "there is a latest and greatest new release, we need it NOW!".

Ilya Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About