David Golden wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2007 2:37 AM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [1] It can be argued that bleadperl testers should probably not email
>> authors,
>> and maybe they aren't I can't tell from these archives, but at least the work
>> is useful. CPAN::Reporter could change the default configuration if it
>> detects a development perl.
>
> That's quite reasonable -- submit to CPAN Testers to help p5p check
> bleadperl against CPAN but don't annoy authors if it fails. What's
> the best way to detect a development perl reliably? I don't think
> it's just odd major numbers, as 5.9.5 switched to 5.10.0 well before
> the actual release candidates were out. Maybe
> $Config{perl_patchlevel}? That seems to have vanished from the final
> release.
That's ok, it doesn't need to be foolproof. Odd numbered versions (starting
at 7) is a good start and will cut out most of the bleadperl noise.
The "5.even as devel" period is very short. CPAN authors should be made aware
of how their code works with release candidates. That's a period when
problems are likely to be for real.
--
I do have a cause though. It's obscenity. I'm for it.
- Tom Lehrer
