On Wed Feb 01 10:58:27 2012, mst@shadowcat.co.uk wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:33:02AM +0000, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 09:34:00AM -0800, Father Chrysostomos via RT > wrote: > > > OK, then let me repeat my two questions: Does anyone want to > write a > > > patch for that? Should I revert Darin McBrideâs patch > (b60dd40238)? > Unless there's any reason to do it a different way, I'd vote for: > > "Tell us where to look to get a pre-dmcbride-patch version, let > somebody > provide a new patch against that, and once that's considered good > revert > his patch and introduce the new one." Agree, because what we have now is tested, and better than what we had before. > Although I'd be somewhat averse to allowing his patch to escape blead > if > we can possibly avoid it. Yes, it would be nice to avoid a visible intermediate step. Much simpler for the end user that way. Nicholas Clark --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: resolved https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=108470