Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2000
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:14:40 -0500 (EST) orwant@oreilly.com (Jon Orwant) wrote: * 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. I wouldn't imagine there was any outside pressure to release 5.6.0. From a bugfix standpoint it seems like a good idea to release something, and I don't see how it could have been called 5.005_04, because of all the changes in the guts. But on the other hand, considering that there isn't much visible change and that the "major" features haven't advanced very much, and the amount of new stuff that doesn't (fully) work has increased rather than decreased, calling it 5.6.0 with the fanfare associated with a major release will probably turn out to be a miscue. Maybe it should have been called 5.5.5 or something like that. Just my opinion of course. Cat's out of the bag now and it's not a disaster, just underwhelming. Good excuse for XS module authors to rev their code if nothing else. Of course, the improvements in the core modules count too, and that's probably more user-visible. BUT where is all that documented. Not in any central location, is it? -joseph