On 3 May 2015 at 07:49, Stefan Seifert <n...@detonation.org> wrote: > To me this future sound like an even larger burden for downstream. >
The burden of extra namespace maintenance is annoying. Sure. But the price of the namespace itself is basically free. And a "burdensome" system as pertaining to *new* development is much more acceptable than foisting an even greater danger of breaking *existing* code in *existing* productions. Because much of that software that is presently in use and presently keeping things alive, is itself, likely unmaintained. And that implies that by our changes, anyone who foolishly upgrades Test::Simple as-is, is taking on a huge burden of maintaining a substantial amount of code which is now broken[*] One might ask "Why upgrade Test::Simple if you're not maintaining software". Well, one does not always upgrade just to get features. Sometimes you upgrade to get bug fixes. Making people pay the price of an upgrade for features they didn't ask for ( which introduce their own bugs ) to get the bug fixes you need is undesirable. *: And to clarify, there is no way for us to make any guarantees or certifications about "We haven't broken anything". We've done tests, which seems like "best effort", but its only "best effort in regards to making radical changes". When the true "best effort" is "not introducing changes that could even *potentially* break code". And we have seen evidence recently that our changes are *well* within their ability to break code. -- Kent *KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
