On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 10:45:46PM -0500, sungo wrote:
> On (02/27 19:57), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Ideally, 5.004 compatibility will be dropped after the new POE test suite
> > is developed. This will make back-porting features that much easier.
>
> sounds like a decent requirement.
>
On (02/27 19:57), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ideally, 5.004 compatibility will be dropped after the new POE test suite
> is developed. This will make back-porting features that much easier.
sounds like a decent requirement.
this means you need an sf.net account so you can get cvs rights if
y
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 f
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.
> To me, a 1.0 release implies a certain measure of spit and polish that
> the documentation (and perhaps the installer) lack.
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 09:38:24PM -0500, sungo wrote:
>
> We of the mysterious irc have been pondering a 1.0 release of poe for a
> while. Its good for marketing if nothing else. There's even a wiki page
> (http://poe.perl.org/?V1.0-todos) documenting our thoughts on
> requirements.
>
> Well, we
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 09:13:51PM -0800, Tim Wood wrote:
> At 08:47 PM 02/06/04, Scott Beck wrote:
>
>
> >To me a version number is nothing more than a loose representation of
> >where the author thinks the code is in terms of stability and the only
> >rule for versions is it must be changed fro
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 18:38, sungo wrote:
> Drop support for any perl versions earlier than 5.6.1.
dropping support for <=5.8.2 is O.K. with me :)
--
Scott Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gossamer Threads
At 08:47 PM 02/06/04, Scott Beck wrote:
>To me a version number is nothing more than a loose representation of
>where the author thinks the code is in terms of stability and the only
>rule for versions is it must be changed from release to release. Just
>MHO.
Good point. I'd like to hear from t
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 23:33:38 -0500 sungo wrote:
+--
| so you're against lines? or sand? :)
|
| so you're saying to make the jump to 0.5 so our arbitrary version jump
| doesnt mean anything else to anyone? or what? kinda confused as to what
| jumping to 0.5 would get us that
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 20:31, Chris Fedde wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:38:24 -0500 sungo wrote:
> +--
> | So, there are my thoughts. I would like comments, thoughts,
> | suggestions, etc etc. Silence is assumed assent. So speak up if you have
> | objections, concerns, etc.
>
On (02/06 21:31), Chris Fedde wrote:
> 1.0 is a line in the sand. To some it implies a commitment to interface. To
> others it means yet another buggy .0 release. If my opinion matters at all
> I'd say hit 0.5 and 0.8 before jumping to 1.0. Then move quickly to 1.1.
so you're against lines? o
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:38:24 -0500 sungo wrote:
+--
| So, there are my thoughts. I would like comments, thoughts,
| suggestions, etc etc. Silence is assumed assent. So speak up if you have
| objections, concerns, etc.
+--
1.0 is a line in the sand. To some it
We of the mysterious irc have been pondering a 1.0 release of poe for a
while. Its good for marketing if nothing else. There's even a wiki page
(http://poe.perl.org/?V1.0-todos) documenting our thoughts on
requirements.
Well, we have some exception support. Scheduled deprecations have mostly
been
13 matches
Mail list logo
