On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 20:01 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I would easily vote to require a MakeMaker version if that is the only
> requirement to keep 5.6.X support to move this release forward. Anyone
> supporting a 5.6.x install should be capable of installing requirements that
> don't necessarily require an entirely new version.
As I've said before (and IIRC Mark implied with his comment 2 years ago
in bugzilla), I'm not about dropping the torch for 5.6. But instead, do
not *claim* we'll always support 5.6.
If it works with 5.6 and some updated Perl modules like MakeMaker, good.
If we can fix an issue for 5.6, good. But do not promise we'll fix and
workaround Perl 5.6 issues, maintaining SA 3.3 until the end of 3.4 --
whenever that'll be. Keep the door open to not back-port critical issues
with Perl 5.6 in 2012, when there's no chance to test it with 5.6 on all
platforms without major headaches.
Essentially we would promise actively supporting any issues with Perl
5.8, but not necessarily fix it for 5.6, too.
> However, I don't support an age-range for supporting perl because even 5.8
> is already nearly 7 years old having been release in July 2002.
It's not about an age-range of obsolete versions being introduced, but
superseded. Don't think "Perl 5.8 is 7 years old", but "5.6 went old 7
years ago". How long is that for 5.8?
> > Did we decide about that yet? :) Is the priority bumping of the
> > MakeMaker bug an implicit death sentence for Perl 5.6 support, or do we
> > want a separate bug to track bumping requirements in two places?
> >
> > See my concerns about carrying around old baggage and a need to support
> > Perl 5.6 for important back-ports until the end of the 3.4 live-time, if
> > we miss this opportunity.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
