Michael G Schwern wrote:
> 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.
Thinking on this a little more, there is the issue of folks like me who share
a single CPAN configuration file across multiple Perl installations. I don't
know how common that is to have a stable and devel perl running off the same
CPAN config and if it's worth adding in a special case in the configuration
for "what do you want to do with development perls" to override the existing
config.
--
If at first you don't succeed--you fail.
-- "Portal" demo
