On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 06:09:52PM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote: > * Dave Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2016-05-03T11:56:31] > > I propose that we revert this commit for 5.24 (we need another RC anyway > > for the SvGROW) issue. > > I have reverted this in a local branch. > > It is not clear to me that there is anything much to gain, here. As per my > message of a few minutes ago, Coro doesn't seem to need this change, if code is > (conditionally?) removed from Coro. Why did no one see this earlier? I had always vaguely assumed that Coro had been patched up to work with 5.22 - I knew that there were efforts to so do - and it was only when someone pointed out to me Aristotle's blog entry from yesterday that I became aware that it (may) still be an issue. http://blogs.perl.org/users/aristotle/2016/05/coro-vs-5022.html I don't know enough about the technical issues with Coro to understand whether the vtable consting is actually a constraint on getting Coro to run under 5.24. > This problem has generated much heat, but little light, and now there's an 11th > hour rush to delay a release to make a possibly unneeded change that could've > been made months ago. Will we ever find out whether this change is really > needed? I have no idea. I imagine, though, that no matter what, there are > going to be hard feelings on *some* part for making *or* not making this > change. > > Of course, if that's lose-lose, what's to be lost by applying this patch? > Probably nothing. I proposed making the change at this very late stage because there is negligible risk of a downside, there's a probable upside, and a new RC has to be released anyway for the SvGROW stuff. -- I before E. Except when it isn't.