Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi Linda!

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 04:46:24 -0700
"Linda A. Walsh"  wrote:

> Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Hi all!
> > do you think I was being unreasonable, or should I as a CPAN
> > author/maintainer/adopter accommodate for people running old perl5s, in my
> > case 5.10.x and below:
> >
> > 
> Going backwards it becomes more difficult to support an old version, 
> along with
> older versions having fewer users.
> 
> I tested some of my modules back to 5.8.  I didn't test any on 5.6, as 
> it was
> just too hard to build.  If there was a clamor to support some of my modules
> on 5.6, I might ask the reporter to do testing and try to see if I can 
> fix something.
> 

5.6 has become painful to build indeed.

> Of course this implies only using a 'core perl' that worked on 5.6.x to 
> develop
> extensions in -- another thing that might cause problems.
> 
> Another issue -- how many years ago was the release?
> 

see http://perldoc.perl.org/perlhist.html .

> If it is old enough, it might be argued that it is hard to support some 
> things
> on SW so old, it may have scores of unpatched bugs.
>

These bugs often don't get in the way of running the module and the tests.
 
> Really though, I can't imagine that *one* answer would work for every 
> situation.
>

yes.
 
> OTOH, if the user wants to add support for the old version, you might be 
> willing to merge the changes into your source?
> 

see my replies on https://github.com/shlomif/perl-XML-SemanticDiff/issues/3 .

> Just thinking...
> 
> my 4 cents (used to be 2 -- inflation hit).
> 

heh, Israel stopped minting 1 and 5 agoroth (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_new_shekel ) coins because they costed
too much to produce.

> -l



-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
What Makes Software Apps High Quality -  http://shlom.in/sw-quality

I often wonder why I hang out with so many people who are so pedantic. And
then I remember — because they are so pedantic.
— an Israeli Perl Monger

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi Rocco,

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:28:03 -0400
Rocco Caputo  wrote:

> On Aug 17, 2018, at 10:26, Shlomi Fish  wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 08:19:26 -0500
> > Andy Lester  wrote:  
> >> 
> >> I suggest that trying to optimize away complaining is a losing battle.  You
> >> will never make everyone happy.  
> > 
> > Good advice, but see the first item of
> > https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/02/19/seven-steps-to-remarkable-customer-service/
> > and the story at the bottom of
> > http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Devtools/ides.html .  
> 
> "But when you think a little harder you can usually find a deeper solution: a
> way to prevent this particular problem from ever happening again."
> 
> I agree that complaining is a significant problem.  I look forward to hearing
> your final solution for it.
> 

by fixing bugs/quirks/etc you can prevent further complaints about the same
issues. But people like to complain, including to a large extent I as well. See
https://shlomif.livejournal.com/39215.html (BTW, I recall finding an LKML post
where Torvalds did say this, and it was a reply to a complaint about him using
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper before its gratis version was
discontinued, which in turn prompted creating git and other VCSes, but he
wasn't the first to say the quote.)

> -- 
> Rocco Caputo 


-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
Understand what Open Source is - http://shlom.in/oss-fs

Chuck Norris can become root on OpenBSD. By using nothing but /bin/echo.
(By: ZadYree and Shlomi Fish)
— http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Chuck-Norris/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Rocco Caputo]

On Aug 17, 2018, at 10:26, Shlomi Fish  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 08:19:26 -0500
> Andy Lester  wrote:
>> 
>> I suggest that trying to optimize away complaining is a losing battle.  You
>> will never make everyone happy.
> 
> Good advice, but see the first item of
> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/02/19/seven-steps-to-remarkable-customer-service/
> and the story at the bottom of http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Devtools/ides.html .

"But when you think a little harder you can usually find a deeper solution: a 
way to prevent this particular problem from ever happening again."

I agree that complaining is a significant problem.  I look forward to hearing 
your final solution for it.

-- 
Rocco Caputo 

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Shlomi Fish]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 08:19:26 -0500
Andy Lester  wrote:

> > On Aug 17, 2018, at 4:41 AM, Shlomi Fish  wrote:
> > 
> > I see - in that case I suppose they can afford to either pay me, say 100 USD
> > per dist per year, so I'll support older versions of perl there - and for
> > everyone, or alternatively do the backporting work themselves. And in both
> > cases, stop complaining.  
> 
> I suggest that trying to optimize away complaining is a losing battle.  You
> will never make everyone happy.  Don’t optimize for whining.

Good advice, but see the first item of
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/02/19/seven-steps-to-remarkable-customer-service/
and the story at the bottom of http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Devtools/ides.html .

-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Can-I-SCO-Now/ - “Can I SCO Now?”

What is is. Perceive It. Integrate it. Act on it. Idealize it.
— Leonard Peikoff

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi Paul!

Thanks for the reply.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 09:56:44 -0400
Paul Bennett  wrote:

> I have faced this question head-on with some of my modules.
> 
> My take is that there are many, many corporations version-locked to
> specific "enterprise-grade" Linux distros, and stuck with system Perls
> maybe as old as 5.10, and potentially stuck with security policies that
> make solutions like perlbrew difficult.
> 

I see - in that case I suppose they can afford to either pay me, say 100 USD
per dist per year, so I'll support older versions of perl there - and for
everyone, or alternatively do the backporting work themselves. And in both
cases, stop complaining.

Regards,

Shlomi

> I try (when I can), therefore, to keep at least one version of my modules
> on CPAN that will run on 5.10 (5.8.8 sometimes), even if the default /
> latest CPAN version needs something newer for full functionality or higher
> performance or greater readability, or whatever.
> 
> I may be alone in this, also, but whenever I clean up my PAUSE distros, I
> try to leave the $v.0 and the latest $v.$last versions of every module, for
> every major version $v of that module. This is in case anyone has a module
> (on or off CPAN) that has some kind of version locking in their deps.
> 
> --
> P/PW/PWBENNETT



-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/shlomif/

Become an awesome Perl ninja rockstar vampire zombie pirate.
— http://is.gd/T2uCO7

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[David Cantrell]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 09:56:44AM -0400, Paul Bennett wrote:

> My take is that there are many, many corporations version-locked to
> specific "enterprise-grade" Linux distros, and stuck with system Perls
> maybe as old as 5.10, and potentially stuck with security policies that
> make solutions like perlbrew difficult.

This is why I created cpXXXan (which needs a new maintainer).

-- 
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

  While researching this email, I was forced to carry out some
  investigative work which unfortunately involved a bucket of
  puppies and a belt sander
-- after JoeB, in the Monastery

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Linda A. Walsh]

Shlomi Fish wrote:

Hi all!
do you think I was being unreasonable, or should I as a CPAN
author/maintainer/adopter accommodate for people running old perl5s, in my case 
5.10.x and below:

  
Going backwards it becomes more difficult to support an old version, 
along with

older versions having fewer users.

I tested some of my modules back to 5.8.  I didn't test any on 5.6, as 
it was

just too hard to build.  If there was a clamor to support some of my modules
on 5.6, I might ask the reporter to do testing and try to see if I can 
fix something.


Of course this implies only using a 'core perl' that worked on 5.6.x to 
develop

extensions in -- another thing that might cause problems.

Another issue -- how many years ago was the release?

If it is old enough, it might be argued that it is hard to support some 
things

on SW so old, it may have scores of unpatched bugs.

Really though, I can't imagine that *one* answer would work for every 
situation.


OTOH, if the user wants to add support for the old version, you might be 
willing to merge the changes into your source?


Just thinking...

my 4 cents (used to be 2 -- inflation hit).

-l

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Dan Book]

On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 4:39 PM Shlomi Fish  wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> This post is a little flamebait, so please try to keep the discussion
> civil.
>
> Anyway, after reading the discussion in this public github issue, and
> following
> some of the links (especially
>
> https://szabgab.com/what-does--if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it--really-mean.html
> ),
> do you think I was being unreasonable, or should I as a CPAN
> author/maintainer/adopter accommodate for people running old perl5s, in my
> case
> 5.10.x and below:
>
> https://github.com/shlomif/perl-XML-SemanticDiff/issues/3
>
> This reminds me of what chromatic wrote here -
> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2008/09/msg140206.html
> :
>
> «
> This is why we can't have nice things.
> »
>
> Any comments or opinions? I think I'll relax by watching a nice and fun
> video.
>
>
Here is my take on the issue.

1. There is a general expectation that old but supported (by toolchain)
Perls will continue to work, but perhaps not be able to use new features.
This is just the legacy of Perl.

2. As a CPAN author you have no obligation to support anything you don't
want to. Users have the ability to fork your module or use a different one
if they need to.

3. It's generally polite to your users to declare and support a minimum
Perl version that is consistent with what Perl features you are using, and
that is simple for you to test on to ensure continued support (e.g. via
Travis CI or cpantesters, if not your own system).

With all of that combined, my personal policy for CPAN modules that I
expect others to use is to support back to 5.8 unless it is in an ecosystem
that already requires a newer version (like a Mojolicious module requires
5.10, a Dist::Zilla module requires 5.14). But that is just because that is
the minimum version which is supported by toolchain and convenient for me
to test through Travis CI. Your support policy can be whatever you want it
to be, but be aware how people will decide to go about using or not using
your module as a result.

-Dan

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Paul Bennett]

I have faced this question head-on with some of my modules.

My take is that there are many, many corporations version-locked to
specific "enterprise-grade" Linux distros, and stuck with system Perls
maybe as old as 5.10, and potentially stuck with security policies that
make solutions like perlbrew difficult.

I try (when I can), therefore, to keep at least one version of my modules
on CPAN that will run on 5.10 (5.8.8 sometimes), even if the default /
latest CPAN version needs something newer for full functionality or higher
performance or greater readability, or whatever.

I may be alone in this, also, but whenever I clean up my PAUSE distros, I
try to leave the $v.0 and the latest $v.$last versions of every module, for
every major version $v of that module. This is in case anyone has a module
(on or off CPAN) that has some kind of version locking in their deps.

--
P/PW/PWBENNETT

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Shlomi Fish]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:41:54 +0200
Xavier Noria  wrote:

> I’ve been out of the Perl community for many years, but to give you an
> example of the opposite trend, in Rails we drop support for old Ruby really
> fast. People need to move forward if they want to upgrade Rails (and
> culturally, they normally do).
> 
> Giving this example to subscribe something already said in this thread. If
> the project is yours, you set the rules, it’s your work and your time, so
> it is your call.

Speaking of Rails, is this true:
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/show.cgi?id=compiling-a-C-program-from-20-years-ago
 ?

-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
https://is.gd/MQHVF3 - The Atom Text Editor edits a 2,000,001B file

Oh believe me, the Nagus has the greatest business mind in the entire Ferengi
Alliance, always thinking ten, sometimes twenty steps ahead of everyone else.
— Quark in http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Grand_Nagus

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi,

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 09:33:59 +0100
Stephen Patterson  wrote:

> Hi Shlomi
> 
> It's been several years since I was last active in the Perl community, so
> take this with a good pinch of salt (I think 5.8 was new at the time) :)
> 
> That being said, I remember each module having a dependencies file with the
> minimum compatible perl version for that version of the module, which can
> keep older versions of perl on older versions of your module.
> 

yes, http://dzil.org/ should have provided that, but some end-users complained
that the specified minimum of 5.12.x was too high for them.

> I think we also need to consider the perl versions list
> http://www.cpan.org/src/ where 5.28 & 5.26002 are considered "in
> maintenance" & anything prior is considered "end of life". Do we have any
> visibility of which versions are most commonly in use at present?
> 

There are some surveys, but they are voluntary and it is hard to know with the
darkpan.

> So I'd expect a perl module to work in current perl & a reasonable number
> of previous versions. Perhaps if the latest release fixes some major
> issues, it would be good to make it available a bit further back, but not
> all the way.

Yes.

> 
> 
> Kind regards
> Steve/SRPATT
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 9:39 PM Shlomi Fish  wrote:
> 
> > Hi all!
> >
> > This post is a little flamebait, so please try to keep the discussion
> > civil.
> >
> > Anyway, after reading the discussion in this public github issue, and
> > following
> > some of the links (especially
> >
> > https://szabgab.com/what-does--if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it--really-mean.html
> > ),
> > do you think I was being unreasonable, or should I as a CPAN
> > author/maintainer/adopter accommodate for people running old perl5s, in my
> > case
> > 5.10.x and below:
> >
> > https://github.com/shlomif/perl-XML-SemanticDiff/issues/3
> >
> > This reminds me of what chromatic wrote here -
> > https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2008/09/msg140206.html
> > :
> >
> > «
> > This is why we can't have nice things.
> > »
> >
> > Any comments or opinions? I think I'll relax by watching a nice and fun
> > video.
> >
> > -- Shlomi
> >
> > --
> > -
> > Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
> > http://is.gd/htwEXQ - Integrating GNU Guile into GNU coreutils
> >
> > Joel’s Generalisation: If it happens to you, it happens to everybody.
> > (Or: It’s never only you.)
> > — Based on http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20020402.html
> >
> > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
> >  



-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
Chuck Norris/etc. Facts - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/

 buu: do you have a functional spec? An architecture document? An
interface whitepaper? A developer’s guide? A user manual? A “The BL Book” and
“BL — The Program”?
 rindolf: no, no, no no and no

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Shawn H Corey]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:41:54 +0200
Xavier Noria  wrote:

> I’ve been out of the Perl community for many years, but to give you an
> example of the opposite trend, in Rails we drop support for old Ruby
> really fast. People need to move forward if they want to upgrade
> Rails (and culturally, they normally do).
> 
> Giving this example to subscribe something already said in this
> thread. If the project is yours, you set the rules, it’s your work
> and your time, so it is your call.

True but Perl people are used to the convenience of `cpan` installs.
And if it's in CPAN, people feel it should run in all versions of Perl,
even 5.6


-- 
Don't stop where the ink does.

Shawn H Corey

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Xavier Noria]

I’ve been out of the Perl community for many years, but to give you an
example of the opposite trend, in Rails we drop support for old Ruby really
fast. People need to move forward if they want to upgrade Rails (and
culturally, they normally do).

Giving this example to subscribe something already said in this thread. If
the project is yours, you set the rules, it’s your work and your time, so
it is your call.
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Arthur Corliss]

On Sat, 11 Aug 2018, Shlomi Fish wrote:


Hi all!

This post is a little flamebait, so please try to keep the discussion civil.

Anyway, after reading the discussion in this public github issue, and following
some of the links (especially
https://szabgab.com/what-does--if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it--really-mean.html ),
do you think I was being unreasonable, or should I as a CPAN
author/maintainer/adopter accommodate for people running old perl5s, in my case
5.10.x and below:

https://github.com/shlomif/perl-XML-SemanticDiff/issues/3

This reminds me of what chromatic wrote here -
https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2008/09/msg140206.html :

?
This is why we can't have nice things.
?

Any comments or opinions? I think I'll relax by watching a nice and fun video.


I think this begs a question: how many developers are actually testing
with those older versions?  From a purely pragmatic perspective I'd think
devs should only officially support down to revs they're actively
testing, but at the same time staying cognizant of the oldest perl revs
shipped as part of non-EOL'd Unices, etc.

Personally, I'm still supporting 5.008003, but I occasionally consider
whether newer syntactic sugars might be worth a jump.  I have to admit I
quite supporting 5.006005 just because it was getting tedious having to
maintain my own patches just to compile and install it.

Ideally, whatever your choice, a dev shipping code for the benefit of the
community shouldn't be badgered for not wanting to take on the extra
maintenance efforts.  At the same time, said dev shouldn't be surprised if
wider use of the same contributions are limited until the broader community
catches up.

Do what you want, dude.  We might not all make the same decisions, but we
all get it.

--Arthur Corliss
  Live Free or Die

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi Lars,

thanks for your comprehensive and informative reply.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 10:23:50 +0200
Lars Dɪᴇᴄᴋᴏᴡ 迪拉斯  wrote:

> I have read the posts linked in your message.
> 
> > should I as a CPAN author/maintainer/adopter accommodate for people
> > running old perl5s  
> 
> It's your choice. You are in charge of the software, so you get to
> decide. I'm certain that's how it's been generally handled in past, too.
> 

Right, but it won't stop people from complaining. There is
http://shlomifishswiki.branchable.com/Never_Try_to_Please_Everyone/ but OTOH in
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/02/19/seven-steps-to-remarkable-customer-service/
JoS says to fix each tech support request permanently.

> Are you asking to establish a policy that applies to everyone? I don't
> think that's viable.
> 

No, naturally people may opt to support older versions. But I think people who
still run such old versions should realise they should upgrade rather than
request / rant / etc. that maintainers like me should still support them.

> Or do you want confirmation that you handled your particular case
> correctly? I think you did fine by giving away PAUSE permissions.
> 



> 
> 
> It is completely okay
> 
> * to not accommodate people asking for older Perl compat.
> 
> * to not accept compat. patches for any or no reason
> 
> * to ask for payment adequate with the increased maint. burden
> 

Right. Next time I'll try negotiating a payment.

> 
> 
> If you think that people asking for older Perl compat. is bothersome,
> you can do some things so it does not happen so often. The first three
> are easy to do.
> 
> 1. Analyse the code with . If the minimum
> explicit version is set and greater than the minimum syntax version,
> change the explicit version. Put the resulting minimum version into the
> meta files/Build.PL and document it that the number results from code
> analysis.
> 
> 2. If you bump the minimum version number, document the reason in the
> changelog.

Right.

> 
> 3. Use  and
>  so that users of older Perls get nice error
> messages.
> 

OK.

> 4. Document your policy about older Perl compat. on your homepage (the
> page requires a tracked version number and a publishing date) and link
> to it from your distro's documentation. It can be a simple statement
> what you generally intend to do when people ask for older Perl compat.,
> and you could kindly ask the supplicants to evaluate the numerous other
> avenues for dealing with their problem before contacting you: in-house
> CPAN mirrors/distroprefs/patch queues, paying DrHyde for
> , Alt distros…
> 

I'll consider doing it.

> 5. Use  to find pieces of syntax and
> preemptively change them to their 5.8 equivalent.

Yes.

Thanks!

-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
Summer Glau Facts - http://shlom.in/sglau-facts

The Bajoran scholars have positively identified Benjamin Sisko as The Emissary.
They also positively identified the NSA headquarters as The Dungeon.
— http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/NSA/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Stephen Patterson]

Hi Shlomi

It's been several years since I was last active in the Perl community, so
take this with a good pinch of salt (I think 5.8 was new at the time) :)

That being said, I remember each module having a dependencies file with the
minimum compatible perl version for that version of the module, which can
keep older versions of perl on older versions of your module.

I think we also need to consider the perl versions list
http://www.cpan.org/src/ where 5.28 & 5.26002 are considered "in
maintenance" & anything prior is considered "end of life". Do we have any
visibility of which versions are most commonly in use at present?

So I'd expect a perl module to work in current perl & a reasonable number
of previous versions. Perhaps if the latest release fixes some major
issues, it would be good to make it available a bit further back, but not
all the way.


Kind regards
Steve/SRPATT


On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 9:39 PM Shlomi Fish  wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> This post is a little flamebait, so please try to keep the discussion
> civil.
>
> Anyway, after reading the discussion in this public github issue, and
> following
> some of the links (especially
>
> https://szabgab.com/what-does--if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it--really-mean.html
> ),
> do you think I was being unreasonable, or should I as a CPAN
> author/maintainer/adopter accommodate for people running old perl5s, in my
> case
> 5.10.x and below:
>
> https://github.com/shlomif/perl-XML-SemanticDiff/issues/3
>
> This reminds me of what chromatic wrote here -
> https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2008/09/msg140206.html
> :
>
> «
> This is why we can't have nice things.
> »
>
> Any comments or opinions? I think I'll relax by watching a nice and fun
> video.
>
> -- Shlomi
>
> --
> -
> Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
> http://is.gd/htwEXQ - Integrating GNU Guile into GNU coreutils
>
> Joel’s Generalisation: If it happens to you, it happens to everybody.
> (Or: It’s never only you.)
> — Based on http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20020402.html
>
> Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
>

Re: [RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Lars Dɪᴇᴄᴋᴏᴡ 迪拉斯]

I have read the posts linked in your message.

> should I as a CPAN author/maintainer/adopter accommodate for people
> running old perl5s

It's your choice. You are in charge of the software, so you get to
decide. I'm certain that's how it's been generally handled in past, too.

Are you asking to establish a policy that applies to everyone? I don't
think that's viable.

Or do you want confirmation that you handled your particular case
correctly? I think you did fine by giving away PAUSE permissions.



It is completely okay

* to not accommodate people asking for older Perl compat.

* to not accept compat. patches for any or no reason

* to ask for payment adequate with the increased maint. burden



If you think that people asking for older Perl compat. is bothersome,
you can do some things so it does not happen so often. The first three
are easy to do.

1. Analyse the code with . If the minimum
explicit version is set and greater than the minimum syntax version,
change the explicit version. Put the resulting minimum version into the
meta files/Build.PL and document it that the number results from code
analysis.

2. If you bump the minimum version number, document the reason in the
changelog.

3. Use  and
 so that users of older Perls get nice error
messages.

4. Document your policy about older Perl compat. on your homepage (the
page requires a tracked version number and a publishing date) and link
to it from your distro's documentation. It can be a simple statement
what you generally intend to do when people ask for older Perl compat.,
and you could kindly ask the supplicants to evaluate the numerous other
avenues for dealing with their problem before contacting you: in-house
CPAN mirrors/distroprefs/patch queues, paying DrHyde for
, Alt distros…

5. Use  to find pieces of syntax and
preemptively change them to their 5.8 equivalent.

[RANT] Should we try to keep compatibility with old perl5s?

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi all!

This post is a little flamebait, so please try to keep the discussion civil.

Anyway, after reading the discussion in this public github issue, and following
some of the links (especially
https://szabgab.com/what-does--if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it--really-mean.html ),
do you think I was being unreasonable, or should I as a CPAN
author/maintainer/adopter accommodate for people running old perl5s, in my case
5.10.x and below:

https://github.com/shlomif/perl-XML-SemanticDiff/issues/3

This reminds me of what chromatic wrote here -
https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2008/09/msg140206.html :

«
This is why we can't have nice things.
»

Any comments or opinions? I think I'll relax by watching a nice and fun video.

-- Shlomi

-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://is.gd/htwEXQ - Integrating GNU Guile into GNU coreutils

Joel’s Generalisation: If it happens to you, it happens to everybody.
(Or: It’s never only you.)
— Based on http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20020402.html

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .