On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 19:32 -0400, Adam Katz wrote:
> > I haven't followed the perl 5.12 patches, but it makes sense to me
> > that 5.12 compatibility would be a good thing to fold in. Other
> > devs, please speak up +1 or -1 on that.
>
> -1
>
> 5.12 compatibility is fine. A 5.12 /dependency/ is bad, though
> perhaps acceptable for a 3.4.0 dependency assuming 5.12 has found its
> way into the enterprise OS's with enough buffer before SA 3.4's release.
>
> Perl 5.12 is only one month old and has only been packaged by ONE
> distribution to date.
Huh?
I appear not to have kept the previous discussion, but this is obviously
about *compatibility* with 5.12 -- that means, not to break when run
with Perl 5.12. No one ever suggested raising the dependency bar.
In fact, SA 3.3 just dropped official support for Perl 5.6, which means
it still might run under 5.6, and we would even be willing to get fixes
in. However, we do not promise support for 5.6, and it might break with
that version at any time.
Dropping the old 5.6 from the officially supported set of Perl versions
was a hard discussion already. How did you get the impression we would
drop support for 5.8 and 5.10 *that* easily? Let alone in a micro
version bump...
Compatibility fixes are a good thing. Whether Perl 5.12, or obsolete
versions hardly run today like 5.6. The latter strongly preferred with
community provided patches. ;)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
