Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2011
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: > Whereas for a new major release, if anyone upgrades without testing, and has > the chutzpah to send a bug report about something, my opinion is that most > likely it should be rejected on the basis of "you get to keep both pieces", > particularly if it was a documented change. Hence in major release new > warnings are as tolerable as any other breakage. (ie not very tolerable) I don't think it's a problem to warn on stuff that is discovered to be demonstrably broken. The only question in my mind is whether to deprecate the functions or simply warn. I have zero qualms about deprecating broken things and making anyone who needs compatibility go load POSIX::broken for compatibility when we finally remove the functions from POSIX. Now that we have an explicit policy around bugward-compatibility, we could also do something tricky depending on whether "use v5.16" is in effect or not. With it, you get correct behavior and/or warnings. Without it, you get the same buggy POSIX mess you had before. -- DavidThread Previous | Thread Next