2010/9/1 H.Merijn Brand <h.m.br...@xs4all.nl>: > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:07:46 -0700, Darren Duncan > <dar...@darrenduncan.net> wrote: > >> Tim Bunce wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 08:55:32AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: >> >> On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Tim Bunce wrote: >> >> >> >>> It's back in. I may remove it for 1.615 or, more likely, may leave it >> >>> out and >> >>> individual developers deal with failure reports on perl 5.13.3+/5.14. >> >> You may “remove it…or, more likely, leave it out”? Huh? >> > >> > Ug. I meant "may restore it or, more likely, leave it out". >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > Tim. >> >> I suggest releasing DBI *without* the pollute stuff and let the drivers catch >> up. The drivers would still work with Perls before 5.13 without changes. In >> particular, it will make it much easier to test that drivers are correct if >> DBI >> isn't muddling things up by perpetuating the pollution. -- Darren Duncan > > Though I mentally support this stand, I'm a bit worried about DBD's > that do not have active maintainers and will suddenly fail when DBI is > upgraded and there will be noone available for a quick fix.
They will fail sooner or later regardless the action DBI takes. Finally with 5.14.0 they're broken. I would vote for a DBI-1.614 release with (last time) pollution enabled and quickly after 1.614 is uploaded, an 1.614_01 follows without the PERL_POLLUTE define. I learned during my career of developing concerning dealing with errors: "Die early". When some drivers will continuously fail, probably someone comes who will maintain the drivers. But why take action as long everything is fine (even if it's only pretended). /Jens
