Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2003
Jan Dubois wrote: >>that in this case it can be entirely avoided, and if it can't be entirely >>avoided I'd prefer 100% breakage instead of random nasty surprises. Even if >>the various fixes *appear* to work I'd not be prepared to trust them myself >>anyway, I'd recompile. > > I think Nick's new hashing code is binary compatible with both 5.8.0 and > 5.8.1. In this case I don't see a reason for breaking it in the future. > Just handwaving "it only *appears* to work" seems a little insulting to > Nick's hard work, unless you can explain where you expect it to fail. I think Nick and Stas and all the other people who have weighed in have done an excellent job, however mod_perl makes me nervous at the best of times, and this makes me doubly nervous. It looks to be very hard to get it right - for example Stas mentioned that the hashing stuff has to be working before a perl interpreter is even created for mod_perl - bu then again I'm just a natural pessimist ;-) I also wonder if we will hit any snags in things like Tk and DBI. I hope and pray it works, but we (Solaris) have a ~3 year release cycle, customers don't like to patch or upgrade. Thankfully we have a bit of time before the go/no go for Solaris. >>I care about it in general because if binary compatibility is broke I have >>to ship two versions of perl, and that is more more aggro for me. > > I totally understand. That's why it is important to keep compatibility > for those who are already using 5.8.0. :) I agree 100% with that. If we have to blow 5.8.2 out of the water to preserve 5.8.0 bincompat, so be it. -- Alan Burlison --Thread Previous | Thread Next