Re: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8

2006-01-31 Thread Peter J. Holzer
On 2006-01-31 09:40:32 +1100, Ron Savage wrote: On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:55:53 +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote: Redhat EL 2.1 perl 5.6.1 supported until May 2009 Redhat EL 3 perl 5.8.0 supported until Oct 2010 Oh. I didn't know that. Thanx. So, if Tim wants to support those sysadmins who

Re: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8

2006-01-30 Thread Robert Hicks
Matthew Persico wrote: On 1/27/06, Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Even if you can't move, its not like 5.8 is becoming a hard dependency, rather just a soft dependency, as I recall. The minute Tim writes a piece of code with a construct that is new to 5.8 because a) its cool

Re: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8

2006-01-30 Thread Ron Savage
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:55:53 +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote: Hi Peter Redhat EL 2.1 perl 5.6.1 supported until May 2009 Redhat EL 3 perl 5.8.0 supported until Oct 2010 Oh. I didn't know that. Thanx. So, if Tim wants to support those sysadmins who run distributions as long as they are

RE: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8

2006-01-27 Thread Jeff Urlwin
Tim, Is this now going to be rescinded, in light of the rest of the thread with Gisle? Regards, JEff -Original Message- From: Tim Bunce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:03 AM To: dbi-users@perl.org Subject: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8 FYI

Re: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8

2006-01-27 Thread Darren Duncan
At 12:03 PM + 1/25/06, Tim Bunce wrote: FYI I'm planning on making the next release (1.51) be the last that officially supports perl 5.6. This is partly to make it easier to implement changes in future releases that improve performance with threaded perls. This will benefit ActiveState perl

Re: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8

2006-01-27 Thread Tim Bunce
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 07:05:15AM -0500, Jeff Urlwin wrote: Tim, Is this now going to be rescinded, in light of the rest of the thread with Gisle? Possibly. Though I've had emails from people thanking me for saying this since, they say, that's the only way their employers will be pushed

Re: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8

2006-01-27 Thread Ron Savage
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:20:31 -0800, Darren Duncan wrote: Hi Darren Moreover, I suggest you go a bit further and say that 5.8.1/5.008001 is the minimum version, rather than 5.8.0; no one should actually be using 5.8.0 given all the bugs it has, and the 5.8.1 delta fixed more than any

Re: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8

2006-01-27 Thread Darren Duncan
At 10:51 AM +1100 1/28/06, Ron Savage wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:20:31 -0800, Darren Duncan wrote: Moreover, I suggest you go a bit further and say that 5.8.1/5.008001 is the minimum version, rather than 5.8.0; no one should actually be using 5.8.0 given all the bugs it has, and the

Re: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8

2006-01-27 Thread Matthew Persico
On 1/27/06, Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Even if you can't move, its not like 5.8 is becoming a hard dependency, rather just a soft dependency, as I recall. The minute Tim writes a piece of code with a construct that is new to 5.8 because a) its cool b) he can c) its probably

Re: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8

2006-01-27 Thread Ron Savage
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:36:55 -0800, Darren Duncan wrote: Hi Darren Yes, and people could say that about other specific versions too. Fair enough. I also don't see why the Red Hat supplied distro can't be more up to date; in fact, I would expect any ongoing contract with them to include