On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 01:19:10AM -0500, sungo wrote:
> On (02/07 15:22), Rocco Caputo wrote:
>
> > Signal reform is not quite done. We're still dispatching _signal,
> > albeit with great reluctance.
>
> why? kill this beast already.
Two reasons.
1. It turns a mandatory error into a silent failure.
a. I would rather suck up the inconvenience of maintaining _signal
than engender silent breakage by removing it.
b. The error is pretty clear, and it's easy to address in support
requests. In fact, I don't get support requests about it. So
at the moment, zero inconvenience is less than the anticipated
inconvenience caused by removing _signal.
2. It has not been a pressing issue.
a. There are no active projects waiting for _signal to go away.
b. Other projects are active, and some of them are blocked on things
I can be working on.
c. The longer I wait, the less grief I anticipate to receive when the
change is finally made.
> > To me, a 1.0 release implies a certain measure of spit and polish that
> > the documentation (and perhaps the installer) lack.
>
> the installer has a massive weight of requirements on it that prevents
> it from being all that it can be. its greatest weight is the seeming
> inability of certain users to read what the installer is asking them.
Fair enough. I rechecked ExtUtils::AutoInstall, and it clearly says
"optional" in several places. Consider the minor issue refuted.
Now about the documentation. I really think it falls below the level
of quality that a 1.0 release implies. It's already a bummer for most
people, and it will just be worse with the heightened expectations that
a "golden" release would create.
> > Maybe the backward-looking version can be 1.00 and the forward-looking
> > release 2.00. Then we can chew up the 0 series with reasonable large
> > updates and still leave the pre-5.6.1 maintainer significant room to
> > maneuver.
>
> that pretty much leaves us with a perl-version-support split happening
> in >2038.
>
> i'm sensing that no one really wants to support <5.6.1 anymore but no
> one really wants to decide when where and how we make the split.
I'm waiting to see how the list discussion resolves. Meanwhile, I'm
providing suggestions and trying to exchange ideas. I don't require
pandemic sycophancy, but I expect that people's ideas be responded to
with a level of consideration and courtesy that's appropriate for a
public mailing list.
--
Rocco Caputo - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://poe.perl.org/
