develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from September 2018

Re: RFC: change perl5 versioning

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
=?UTF-8?Q?Branislav_Zahradn=C3=ADk?=
Date:
September 26, 2018 07:19
Subject:
Re: RFC: change perl5 versioning
Message ID:
CAB=rbOk72fm7o2cBQLCE3bSq4anz=41M_SCZU-JDO5xG1kL3ow@mail.gmail.com
Hi Dave

thanks for your comments.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 20:52, Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 06:11:58PM +0200, Branislav ZahradnĂ­k wrote:
> > Anyway, this proposal is only to increase marketing impact to signal that
> > perl 5 is still alive
> > and kicking, even 24 year after 5.0
>
> Please can we not do this. Any change to versioning patterns causes waves
> and complications for years, nay decades. We're only just about past the
> after-effects of moving from perl5.005_03 format to perl-5.6.0 format and
> that was 18 years ago.
>
> At the moment people have to understand the differences between:
>
>     perl5.005_03
>     perl-5.6.0
>     perl-6.xxx
>
> to determine what's what, what's new, and what they should be using.  In
> future we would have to explain all of:
>
>     perl5.005_03
>     perl-5.6.0
>     perl-5.2019.0
>     perl-6.xxx
>
> It's a bit like that XKCD cartoon about inventing a new standard to unify
> and replace N existing and competing standards, only to end up with N+1
> competing standards.
>
> A more technical objection is that the middle number of a perl version is
> used to signify binary (in)compatibility of compiled XS modules.
> If for some reason we wanted to release 2 perls in the same year that
> weren't binary compatible, how would we number them?
>

I have to admit I didn't imagine this.

Though using Leon's presentation in Glasgow where he mentioned that it will
be good
to switch from changes summary to changes plan, I think, this can avoid
such situation.


>
> I think marketing is the worst possible motivation for this change.
> The number of people (coders or managers) that it will convince to adopt
> perl when they otherwise wouldn't is, I suspect, infinitesimal.
>

I don't think so. Marketing is valid motivation as well if it is feasible.
And this RFC is about feasibility.

Imagine someone familiar with semver.org.
Version 5.28.0 means major version 5, minor version 28, patch version 0.

Another example of marketing: Java.
They do not communicate Java 1.9, they communicate Java 9.
Even book titles, like "Java 9 Revealed".

Mentioning books, compare titles (should this or similar proposal be
adopted):
- Perl 2018 Revelated
- Perl5 2018 Revealed
- Perl 5.28 Revealed

As an example, I couldn't actually tell you, without looking, what the
> current major version of the Linux kernel is [ I just looked: its 4,
> apparently ]. But I *am* aware that the Linux kernel gets frequent
> releases and is being actively developed.
>

That's about user base. Should perl (or even perl5) have so many users than
Linux kernel
this RFC will most likely never happen :-)

But it's also worth to say, there is no Linux 5 and Linux 6 :-)


>
> I have seen many threads over the years, here and elsewhere, about
> perl naming and versioning - pumpking perl, perl 7, call perl 6 something
> other than perl, etc etc. The common thread seems to be a belief that by a
> simple name or number change, many of the technical and managerial
> challenges associated with the decline of perl 5 and/or the slow uptake of
> perl 6 will somehow be fixed. I personally think that such challenges will
> continue to exist, and will continue to affect decline/uptake in undiluted
> measure.
>

> --
>
> print+qq&$}$"$/$s$,$a$d$g$s$@$.$q$,$:$.$q$^$,$@$a$~$;$.$q$m&if+map{m,^\d{0\,},,${$::{$'}}=chr($"+=$&||1)}q&10m22,42}6:17a2~2.3@3
> ;^2dg3q/s"&=~m*\d\*.*g
>

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About