develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from April 2010

Re: CGI.pm 3.49 - Re: [perl.git] branch blead, updated.v5.12.0-49-gcfbab81

Thread Previous
From:
Steffen Mueller
Date:
April 17, 2010 01:01
Subject:
Re: CGI.pm 3.49 - Re: [perl.git] branch blead, updated.v5.12.0-49-gcfbab81
Message ID:
4BC96AB4.7000406@cpan.org
Jesse Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:52:57PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> I'd like to nominate this change for backport to maint-5.12
> 

++

--Steffen

Thread Previous


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About