Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2000
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:39:04 -0500 (EST) ilya@math.ohio-state.edu (Ilya
> Zakharevich) wrote:
>
> * Joseph N. Hall writes:
> * > The huge growth in the core from 5.005 to 5.6 without any serious new
> * > fully-operational functionality is rather disappointing to me.
> *
> * It looks like you think that 5.6 is out. It is not. 5.6.0 is a late
> * alpha release of 5.6. Nothing more.
> *
> * We did not even start a public beta cycle yet. Mind boggles why it
> * was thought advantageous to release late-alpha-quality code as an
> * "official release". With the disaster of 5.005_00 the explanation was
> * the pressure from commercial entities (ORA and AS).
> *
> * Who was pressing Sarathy for a premature ejaculation of 5.6.0? The
> * only significant timestamp I can see around is a release of PP v3
> * (when?). Was it a pressure from ORA this time too? Was it the
> * pressure from Larry & co?
Ilya,
Speaking both for O'Reilly and for everyone involved with the Camel:
No, we did not pressure Sarathy to release 5.6.0.
In fact, from O'Reilly's perspective, it would have been better had
Sarathy delayed the release until closer to the conference.
Is the Camel forcing a new release of Perl? No.
Is this conference forcing releases of Perl? No.
Is this conference forcing the next edition of the Camel? Yes.
-Jon