Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2017
Avar wrote: > I think in the future it makes sense to hold > ourselves to reviewing these features once they've been unchanged in say > 2 or 3 releases, and for the policy to say that experimental features > unchanged in 3 development cycles must either be promoted to > non-experimental, removed entirely, or have their semantics changed in > major ways. I don't think it makes sense. If a feature is significantly flawed (and experimental) due to lack of tuits (e.g., refaliasing), do we have to make meaningless design changes to it to avoid having it yanked? I do not believe there is anything in the process that could change in such a way as to help. Some seem to be treating this situation as a disaster that could have been avoided, not realising that the disaster *was* avoided, *precisely* because of the process we currently have, which is working. Nothing has been dumped on users in a stable release yet. I would call that success.Thread Previous | Thread Next