Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2009
Re: Perl 5.10.1
June 21, 2009 00:53
Re: Perl 5.10.1
Message ID: email@example.com
On Sunday 21 June 2009 00:33:54 Craig A. Berry wrote:
> Anyone seriously wanting to see 5.10.1 out the door is
> tracking the maint-5.10 branch, not the 5.10.0 tag.
By this definition, the current approach which has failed to release 5.10 in
seventeen months (including addressing an important and embarrassing
regression detected seventeen months ago) is the only serious (and by
implication, correct) approach. By further implication, anyone not already
participating in the current process is not serious and does not care enough
I prefer my well unpoisoned.
> Suddenly suggesting that we abandon public commitments
> and act on this one bug fix to the exclusion of anything else
> that's happened in the interim is a bit weird.
Is this the same public commitment not to release any code with important and
embarrassing regressions? What part of the current process has not abandoned
that commitment a very long time ago?
I also reject this false dilemma that ameliorating the damage of an important
and embarrassing regression precludes further development in the 5.10.x maint
Every day that Perl 5.10 is the most recent, most modern Perl release
*increases* the number of people affected by the performance regression.
Every day that Perl 5.10 is the most recent, most modern Perl release (which
includes no warning that the smartmatch semantics will eventually change in
incompatible ways) further entrenches that broken behavior and ensures that an
eventual backwards-incompatible release will break *even more* code.
A *new* volunteer has already done the *very modest* work required to produce
a 5.10.1 which can address both of these problems *right now*. 5.10.1 could
be out in a week.
Which public commitments would releasing 5.10.1 with the perldelta warning and
the performance improvement violate?