Adam Katz wrote, On 29/05/10 11:32 AM: > On 05/05/2010 02:33 PM, Sidney Markowitz 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
I'm essentially repeating what Karsten said, but to make sure this is clear: My understanding of this thread is that the 5.12 compatibility patches, which fix errors that appear when running under 5.12 but do not break running under earlier versions of perl, have already been committed to trunk. What I asked about is votes for folding the patches into the 3.3 branch before we release 3.3.2 so that it will be released with compatibility for 5.6 through 5.12 instead of 5.6 through 5.10. (The 5.6 compatibility being not officially supported but not yet broken). The kind of reasons I'm expecting for a +1 vote would be because compatibility with 5.12 is a good thing to get in early even if 5.12 is not popular yet and because the patches are not risky in terms of possibly introducing new bugs or incompatibilities with perl 5.6 - 5.10. The kinds of reasons I would expect if someone were to vote -1 would be that the specific patches do break compatibility with earlier versions of perl, or have not been tested well enough with the older versions, or are too extensive to risk in a point release or won't apply to the 3.3 branch code without extensive rewriting. Adam, do you want to rescind the -1 vote based on the above, or did you notice something about the patches that may break compatibility with earlier versions of perl? I have not actually looked at the patches yet, so I am not offering an opinion one way or the other, just calling for votes from people who have looked at it. -- Sidney
