> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gunther Birznieks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 9:04 AM
> To: Geoffrey Young; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: [DIGEST] mod_perl digest 03/24/01
>
>
> At 08:57 AM 3/26/01 -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
> >mod_perl status
> >
> > o mod_perl
> > - stable: 1.25 (released January 29, 2001) [1]
> > - development: 1.25_01-dev [2]
> > o Apache
> > - stable: 1.3.19 (released February 28, 2001) [3]
> > - development: 1.3.20-dev [4]
> > o Perl
> > - stable: 5.6 (released March 23, 2000) [5]
> > - development: 5.7 [6]
>
> Is Perl 5.6 really the "stable" release?
according to perl.com's front page 5.6 is stable and 5.7 is dev.
> I've seem some
> discussion out of
> the corner of my eye here about people complaining about 5.6
> and to get
> so-and-so latest version instead. To someone like me who
> doesn't really use
> 5.6 specific features, I just avoid getting 5.6 altogether because of
> seeing posts like this.
>
> Also, is 5.6 really the release that works the most stably
> with mod_perl
> 1.25? Or would a variant of 5.005 really be better instead if people
> complain about 5.6?
>
> I just noticed this in the digest and it started me thinking
> about this.
> Because if I read the digest as a newbie, I would be taking
> it to mean that
> if I want the most stable mod_perl server I would use Perl 5.6 with
> mod_perl 1.25.
I suppose you could draw that conclusion. The information I was including,
though, was merely meant to be the status of things as repored by the
various bodies. If a newbie went to perl.com looking for the latest stable
version of perl, he would be directed to 5.6.
there have been lots of reports about 5.6 being broken, but I thought that
it was mostly a few broken features of the language rather than blanket
incompatibility with mod_perl. I can't recall, really...
I think that short of Doug stating which version of perl he wants to endorse
with 1.25 we should go with what is the official listing on perl.com.
of course, I don't follow p5p as well as I should - if they are pretty much
pushing 5.6.1-trial (or whatever) instead of 5.6 then maybe I'll link to
that instead. But they ought to propigate that message out to the masses, I
would think.
--Geoff
>
>
