develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from June 2013

historical information, "new", and history (was Re: [perl.git]branch blead, updated. v5.19.0-609-g28371e3)

Thread Next
Nicholas Clark
June 21, 2013 08:02
historical information, "new", and history (was Re: [perl.git]branch blead, updated. v5.19.0-609-g28371e3)
Message ID:
(David, thanks for doing the release)

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:25:34PM +0200, David Golden wrote:
> In perl.git, the branch blead has been updated
> <>
> - Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
> commit 28371e3dbee6234e13f1dfa4afb650ba7691ebfc
> Author: David Golden <>
> Date:   Thu Jun 20 16:24:05 2013 -0400
>     portport: remove DG/UX
> M	pod/perlport.pod

> diff --git a/pod/perlport.pod b/pod/perlport.pod
> index d186d12..06af912 100644
> --- a/pod/perlport.pod
> +++ b/pod/perlport.pod
> @@ -2185,7 +2185,6 @@ available at L<>
>          BeOS
>          BSD/OS          (BSDi)
>          Cygwin
> -        DG/UX
>          DOS DJGPP       1)
>          DYNIX/ptx
>          EPOC R5
> --

I don't think that that change is correct. It's in the section starting:

=head1 Supported Platforms (Perl 5.8)

As of July 2002 (the Perl release 5.8.0), the following platforms were
able to build Perl from the standard source code distribution
available at L<>

So it's historical information. Further down there's the line
"Mac OS Classic" which we definitely also don't support now.

I'm wondering - should we standardise on a maximum age for "new", and remove
the historical details for older than that? (They are obviously still in
version control).

And should "new"-ness differ for things like perlport, versus the general
documentation? ie "we know v5.10.0 built on these platforms" vs "this
feature is new in v5.10.0" ?

I think that I had suggested 5 major versions, but I'm wondering if it might
be better to consider the baseline for "new" as whatever the toolchain
targets. We shouldn't just be considering "new" to be v5.14.0 or newer,
because we know that end users are upgrading from versions older than we
support, so removing things helpful to them will hinder their upgrades
(or their motivation for upgrades)

So if that's the right cutoff, it would mean that anything in the
documentation about "new in v5.8.0" or "changed in v5.8.0" should now have
the "new" or "changed" parts edited out, but "new in v5.10.0" is still
flaggable as new.

Nicholas Clark

Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About