Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2007
Re: Isn't it High Time for perl-5.8.9?
From: Shlomi Fish
March 15, 2007 12:33
Re: Isn't it High Time for perl-5.8.9?
Message ID: email@example.com
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 12:26:17AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Hi all!
> > I believe it's high time to release a new maintenance release of the
> > perl-5.8.x branch. There are several bugs that I'm aware of in
> > perl-5.8.x.
> So do I. I've been working on it.
Thanks for that. I'll try to help you.
> > However, I'm sure there are many other bugs that bother people. Last time
> > I checked, many major CPAN modules were broken with bleadperl, so I think
> > we should make another perl-5.8.x while people are waiting.
> > "Release early, release often." ;-)
> It's actually rather hard work to make a core perl release.
> There are so many potential ways to mess it up. It's not like the average
> CPAN module, which has some dependencies, but not all of CPAN *AND* the
> company code you can't see. Remember the fun when Test::Builder broke?
> Messing up a core release could be worse.
> Particular fun bits are
> 1: Getting the code stabilised and removing any signs of smoke from the
> smokers. (And getting VMS happy is always fun)
> 2: Wondering if anyone has actually tested anything with maint before the
> first release candidate
> 3: Issuing the first release candidate and wondering if anyone is going to
> test it
> 4: Wondering how to deal with any bugs anyone reports on the release
> candidate. (Trying to work out which change(s) caused them. Trying to work
> out if those changes should be reverted, because the end user code is
> 5: Wondering if it's actually time to call it a release, or whether
> something will show up 6 hours after the official release is blessed, which
> will make it a rather embarrassing mistake.
> Number 5 is the worst bit.
> Given that it's wise to give it at least a week between a release candidate
> and a release, it means that you can't fix anything without a week's delay.
> During which time the duff release will be spreading far and wide.
> 5.8.4 was within 24 hours of such a mess. Had I released a day earlier,
> a lot of e-mail would have bounced, because one-or-other mail delivery
> system was using suidperl in a way that no-one suspected, that specifically
> did exactly what the core documentation said not to do.
> > Oh, and let me know if there's anything I could be of help in this
> > regard.
> 1: Specifically, it would be useful if someone were able to figure out what
> still needs doing with podulators backwards compatibility. See
> I'd like to merge all the upgraded podulators to maint, as it will fix
> bugs and improve things. But I don't want to break backwards API
> If no-one else does this, I may do it. Or I may decide that it's not
> going to happen because it will take too much of my time.
What sort of regression do you expect to surface?
> 2: Specifically, it would be useful if someone were able to test that the
> current blead version of Storable builds and passes tests on older perl
> versions in various configurations, at least back to 5.005_04
> Storable needs a non-development CPAN release before it can be merged
> into 5.8.x
OK, I'll give it a try.
> 3: More generally, it is very useful if everyone gets maint, eg from
> rsync -avz rsync://ftp.linux.activestate.com/perl-5.8.x/
> and builds their work/private code with it (and runs it). Run CPAN
> modules' regression tests with it is one thing, but actually building
> and using it on a sandbox version of your company development
> environment is in a different league. I see from your other message that
> you're already doing this. Thanks.
You're welcome. I guess I'll have to release a new version of Website Meta
Language to fix the compilation problem. (I'm its maintainer).
Shlomi Fish firstname.lastname@example.org
Chuck Norris wrote a complete Perl 6 implementation in a day but then
destroyed all evidence with his bare hands, so no one will know his secrets.