On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:41:04AM -0700, Stas Bekman wrote:
Seeing the rush of restoring some things as they were in 5.8.0 for 5.8.2, I just thought that this could be one of the things that needs to be reverted as well. Of course if the patch that we discussed does the trick, than it's fine.
rush? what rush?
Or have I misunderstood. Do you mean "rush" as in urgency in as much as people are trying to get things done quickly to meet a perceived tight release schedule (but the list of things is small)? Or "rush" as in many things are all arriving wanting to be reverted?
The only thing that I was aware of driving the desire to have a 5.8.2 soon was the binary compatibility issue over hashes. If this is true, then I'm minded to release a 5.8.2 with the bare minimum of changes, and everything else can wait until 5.8.3, which is pencilled in for January 2004.
(I'm not aware of any other binary compatibility issues. They may exist, but I am not aware of them, so please remind me of them, or tell me about them for the first time, or forever hold your peace. [Other options may be available :-)])
Sorry Nick, I didn't imply any bad meaning by saying "rush". All I wanted to say is that since 5.8.2 is a maint release, it could fix problems in 5.8.1 which didn't exist in 5.8.0. It'll take awhile before people will move to 5.8.1, so if 5.8.2 is released shortly, and it fixes incompatible changes between 5.8.1 and 5.8.0, nobody will notice those incompatibilities, as people will move directly to 5.8.2, bypassing 5.8.1.
__________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
