Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2000
>On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, David Grove wrote: > I, for one, am advising my users and readers to avoid 5.6 at this time. That's fine. People advising "users" very rarely advise an instant upgrade to a new and unproven version of a complicated program. The only exception is when the old version is unworkable - which 5.005_03 is certainly not. The cautious are well served by never upgrading *any* software to a verison less than a few months old. > and from what I'm seeing the most > important modules to Win32 users are not ready for 5.6 internals and > therefore do not compile. No surprise there. Module authors are really a lazy bunch when it comes to making patches for development versions. I maintain a few packages and only one of them works with 5.6! I'll be releasing 5.6 versions soon enough and I'm sure I won't be alone. > IS Perl 5.6 considered stable? Yes, I believe I've heard Sarathy state at least a few times that it is. Among other things, 5.6 is a bug fix release. 5.005_03 is not exactly bug free, I hope you realize! > I am at the dawn of the first official release of CodeMagic, Perl's > only world-class editor at this time That's a joke, right? Have you heard of Emacs? That's my "world-class" Perl editor of choice. > I have user who are going to question this, and I don't have an answer > for them. Repeat after me - "I recommend holding off upgrading for at least a month or two. A number of important modules don't work with 5.6 yet, but they will soon." Is that really so hard? Do you think it could have been any other way? -samThread Previous | Thread Next