Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?

2010-08-31 Thread Tim Bunce 
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?

2010-08-31 Thread David E. Wheeler 
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: [svn:dbi] r14361 - dbi/trunk/t

2010-08-31 Thread Tim Bunce 
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 01:49:10PM -0700, hmbr...@cvs.perl.org wrote:
 Log:
 Fix for failing t/50 when old SQL::Statement available (e.g. 1.16)

Does this fix http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/8392757 ?

  my $dbi_sql_nano = $ENV{DBI_SQL_NANO};
  unless( $dbi_sql_nano ) {
 -$@ = undef;
 +my $haveSS = 0;
  eval {
   require SQL::Statement;
 + $haveSS = DBD::DBM::Statement-isa('SQL::Statement');
  };
 -$@ and $dbi_sql_nano = 1;
 +$dbi_sql_nano = !$haveSS;
  }

Could this:

  my $dbi_sql_nano = $ENV{DBI_SQL_NANO};
  unless( $dbi_sql_nano ) {
  my $haveSS = 0;
  eval {
require SQL::Statement;
$haveSS = DBD::DBM::Statement-isa('SQL::Statement');
  };
  $dbi_sql_nano = !$haveSS;
  }

be expressed as:

   my $dbi_sql_nano = $ENV{DBI_SQL_NANO};
   unless( $dbi_sql_nano ) {
   $dbi_sql_nano = not eval {
 require SQL::Statement;
 DBD::DBM::Statement-isa('SQL::Statement');
   };
   }

or even

   # use Nano if requested or if SQL::Statement isn't usable for DBD::DBM
   my $dbi_sql_nano = $ENV{DBI_SQL_NANO} || not eval {
require SQL::Statement; DBD::DBM::Statement-isa('SQL::Statement')
};

Tim.

Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?

2010-08-31 Thread David E. Wheeler 
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?

2010-08-31 Thread Darren Duncan 

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