develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from April 2016

Un-dual-life’ing [was: the IO dist]

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Aristotle Pagaltzis
April 8, 2016 20:48
Un-dual-life’ing [was: the IO dist]
Message ID:
* Ricardo Signes <> [2016-04-08 20:23]:
> Todd Rinaldo suggested that maybe we should stop treating IO as
> dual-life, as it might break things if released now, and that it might
> make more sense to only get a new IO(::File) when you upgrade perl.

A release *might* break things, but un-dual-life’ing is *certain* to:*%3A%5B+%5Ct%5D*%22%28%5B%5E0%5D%7C0%2B%5B%5E%22%5D%29

The fact that dists may take dependencies on dual-life modules basically
implies that dual-life modules must never become indexed under the perl
dist again.

I suppose exceptions to this rule are conceivable on a case-by-case
basis, but that seems a very long shot in practice. The module at hand
would have to have extremely few revdeps, and due to lack of visibility
into the DarkPAN even this is probably only a reasonable criterion if
the module was dual-life’d very recently. (Which of course would raise
the question of why nobody saw the problem coming (whatever it was that
would cause a desire to re-un-dual-life the module).)

Basically: once dual-life, always dual-life.

> If we want to get a new IO dist released, we should just do it:  make
> a dev release (there have been some over the past years), test it, and
> release it after a test period.


Aristotle Pagaltzis // <>

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