Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:07:46 -0700, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote: Tim Bunce wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 08:55:32AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Tim Bunce wrote: It's back in. I may remove it for 1.615 or, more likely, may leave it out and individual developers deal with failure reports on perl 5.13.3+/5.14. You may “remove it…or, more likely, leave it out”? Huh? Ug. I meant may restore it or, more likely, leave it out. Thanks. Tim. I suggest releasing DBI *without* the pollute stuff and let the drivers catch up. The drivers would still work with Perls before 5.13 without changes. In particular, it will make it much easier to test that drivers are correct if DBI isn't muddling things up by perpetuating the pollution. -- Darren Duncan Though I mentally support this stand, I'm a bit worried about DBD's that do not have active maintainers and will suddenly fail when DBI is upgraded and there will be noone available for a quick fix. -- H.Merijn Brand http://tux.nl Perl Monger http://amsterdam.pm.org/ using 5.00307 through 5.12 and porting perl5.13.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11, 11.23, and 11.31, OpenSuSE 10.3, 11.0, and 11.1, AIX 5.2 and 5.3. http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org/ http://qa.perl.org http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?
2010/9/1 H.Merijn Brand h.m.br...@xs4all.nl: On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:07:46 -0700, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote: Tim Bunce wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 08:55:32AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Tim Bunce wrote: It's back in. I may remove it for 1.615 or, more likely, may leave it out and individual developers deal with failure reports on perl 5.13.3+/5.14. You may “remove it…or, more likely, leave it out”? Huh? Ug. I meant may restore it or, more likely, leave it out. Thanks. Tim. I suggest releasing DBI *without* the pollute stuff and let the drivers catch up. The drivers would still work with Perls before 5.13 without changes. In particular, it will make it much easier to test that drivers are correct if DBI isn't muddling things up by perpetuating the pollution. -- Darren Duncan Though I mentally support this stand, I'm a bit worried about DBD's that do not have active maintainers and will suddenly fail when DBI is upgraded and there will be noone available for a quick fix. They will fail sooner or later regardless the action DBI takes. Finally with 5.14.0 they're broken. I would vote for a DBI-1.614 release with (last time) pollution enabled and quickly after 1.614 is uploaded, an 1.614_01 follows without the PERL_POLLUTE define. I learned during my career of developing concerning dealing with errors: Die early. When some drivers will continuously fail, probably someone comes who will maintain the drivers. But why take action as long everything is fine (even if it's only pretended). /Jens
Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 08:56:22AM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote: On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:07:46 -0700, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote: Tim Bunce wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 08:55:32AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Tim Bunce wrote: It's back in. I may remove it for 1.615 or, more likely, may leave it out and individual developers deal with failure reports on perl 5.13.3+/5.14. You may “remove it…or, more likely, leave it out”? Huh? Ug. I meant may restore it or, more likely, leave it out. [Gah. I'm talking gibberish.] I suggest releasing DBI *without* the pollute stuff and let the drivers catch up. The drivers would still work with Perls before 5.13 without changes. In particular, it will make it much easier to test that drivers are correct if DBI isn't muddling things up by perpetuating the pollution. -- Darren Duncan Though I mentally support this stand, I'm a bit worried about DBD's that do not have active maintainers and will suddenly fail when DBI is upgraded and there will be noone available for a quick fix. I agree. It's inappropriate for me to risk potential failures of drivers due to a change in the DBI that isn't really needed. Any breakage would affect users of all versions of perl, not just those trying 5.14. I'm just flagging an issue that'll affect users of 5.14 in the hope of minimizing the damage when it does. I think that's worked quite well. At the moment I believe DBD::Oracle and DBD::Informix have the problem. I hope their maintainers have a new release out soon. Tim.
Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 02:15:32PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote: Tim Bunce wrote: What's the state of play? Will DBI 1.614 still lack the POLLUTE or did you put that back in? -- Darren Duncan It's back in. I may remove it for 1.615 or, more likely, may leave it out and individual developers deal with failure reports on perl 5.13.3+/5.14. Tim.
Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?
On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Tim Bunce wrote: It's back in. I may remove it for 1.615 or, more likely, may leave it out and individual developers deal with failure reports on perl 5.13.3+/5.14. You may “remove it…or, more likely, leave it out”? Huh? David
Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?
On Aug 31, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Tim Bunce wrote: It's back in. I may remove it for 1.615 or, more likely, may leave it out and individual developers deal with failure reports on perl 5.13.3+/5.14. You may “remove it…or, more likely, leave it out”? Huh? Ug. I meant may restore it or, more likely, leave it out. But you said “It's back in,” so I don't think you can restore it if it's already restored. Confused, David
Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?
Tim Bunce wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 08:55:32AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Tim Bunce wrote: It's back in. I may remove it for 1.615 or, more likely, may leave it out and individual developers deal with failure reports on perl 5.13.3+/5.14. You may “remove it…or, more likely, leave it out”? Huh? Ug. I meant may restore it or, more likely, leave it out. Thanks. Tim. I suggest releasing DBI *without* the pollute stuff and let the drivers catch up. The drivers would still work with Perls before 5.13 without changes. In particular, it will make it much easier to test that drivers are correct if DBI isn't muddling things up by perpetuating the pollution. -- Darren Duncan
Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?
2010/8/30 Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com: What's the state of play? Beside the failing test on Win32 which needs a detailed view, not really. I'd like to use dbd_edit_mm_attribs for reworked tests in SQL::Statement (but I'm not near to the finish line, so maybe 1.615 could be ready then ^^) and for DBD::Sys (which is using Build.PL). While I'm doing this, probably I could handle # XXX need to convert this to work within the generated Makefile too :) /Jens
Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?
Tim Bunce wrote: What's the state of play? Will DBI 1.614 still lack the POLLUTE or did you put that back in? -- Darren Duncan
Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:40:52 +0200, H.Merijn Brand h.m.br...@xs4all.nl wrote: What's the state of play? Jens has to make t/50dbm_simple.t more defensive Done and passed. 1.163_92 is up and available Thank you Tim for the speedy action -- H.Merijn Brand http://tux.nl Perl Monger http://amsterdam.pm.org/ using 5.00307 through 5.12 and porting perl5.13.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11, 11.23, and 11.31, OpenSuSE 10.3, 11.0, and 11.1, AIX 5.2 and 5.3. http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org/ http://qa.perl.org http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
