Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2010
On 15 April 2010 17:37, Jesse Vincent <jesse@fsck.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 09:35:34AM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: >> Author: Rafael Garcia-Suarez <rgs@consttype.org> >> Date: Thu Apr 15 09:35:07 2010 +0200 >> >> Upgrade to CGI.pm 3.49 > > So, our policy says that we shouldn't be sending this whole update back > to maint. But there _is_ a security fix in there, as well as a > regression that seems "important" to deal with for maint. > > Do we want to cherry-pick just those bits? Since there's so little > actually _in_ this update other than those bits, do we just want to take > the whole module? > > Is this bikeshed teal or or cornflower blue? I see very little point in including in perl a cpan module that doesn't have an exact counterpart on CPAN. If really needed, we can ask the CPAN maintainer to release a special version X.Y.1 that corresponds to X.Y (shipped with 5.12.0 for eaxmple) plus one specific patch. However, I really don't think it's worth the effort here (for the reasons you listed).Thread Previous | Thread Next