Re: SPEC UPDATE: [rt.cpan.org #55602] Bug #12239 was a mistake
On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Jan Dubois wrote: > Yes, it does matter: > > 1) CPAN modules bundled in Perl releases are supposed to have a matching > CPAN release. Exceptions are meant for emergencies only. See http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2010/04/msg158700.html. > 2) It makes the job of the core committer a lot easier if they can just > upgrade the module in its entirety without having to manually extract > a minimal patch. That's true for blead, but not for maint anymore, IIUC. We'll see what Jesse tells RJBS. Best, David
RE: SPEC UPDATE: [rt.cpan.org #55602] Bug #12239 was a mistake
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > > > I'd really like to get the "perldoc command broken" into 5.12.1, and > > I think we'll have the best chance of that if the delta to the new > > version is as small as possible. Can we do 3.14 just for that (and > > the already-fixed warnings) and then 3.15 ASAP with further > > improvements? > > Does it really matter? 5.12.1 won't pull in the full 3.14 release > anyway, just the regression. Does it matter whether or not it's > released with any fixes before it goes to maint? Yes, it does matter: 1) CPAN modules bundled in Perl releases are supposed to have a matching CPAN release. Exceptions are meant for emergencies only. 2) It makes the job of the core committer a lot easier if they can just upgrade the module in its entirety without having to manually extract a minimal patch. Cheers, -Jan
Re: SPEC UPDATE: [rt.cpan.org #55602] Bug #12239 was a mistake
On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > That is not what I'd expect. I would not guess that Jesse wants a subset of > changes, getting us a dual-lived module with no corresponding CPAN release and > a version number that was never available elsewhere. It's what I'd expect given that the version numbers of CPAN modules will be incremented only to dev release version numbers in maint, IIUC. > I could be wrong. I will ask him if he's around, today. That would help, thanks. David
Re: SPEC UPDATE: [rt.cpan.org #55602] Bug #12239 was a mistake
* "David E. Wheeler" [2010-04-20T13:35:11] > On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > > > I'd really like to get the "perldoc command broken" into 5.12.1, and I > > think we'll have the best chance of that if the delta to the new version is > > as small as possible. Can we do 3.14 just for that (and the already-fixed > > warnings) and then 3.15 ASAP with further improvements? > > Does it really matter? 5.12.1 won't pull in the full 3.14 release anyway, > just the regression. Does it matter whether or not it's released with any > fixes before it goes to maint? That is not what I'd expect. I would not guess that Jesse wants a subset of changes, getting us a dual-lived module with no corresponding CPAN release and a version number that was never available elsewhere. I could be wrong. I will ask him if he's around, today. -- rjbs
Re: SPEC UPDATE: [rt.cpan.org #55602] Bug #12239 was a mistake
On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > I'd really like to get the "perldoc command broken" into 5.12.1, and I think > we'll have the best chance of that if the delta to the new version is as small > as possible. Can we do 3.14 just for that (and the already-fixed warnings) > and > then 3.15 ASAP with further improvements? Does it really matter? 5.12.1 won't pull in the full 3.14 release anyway, just the regression. Does it matter whether or not it's released with any fixes before it goes to maint? If so, sure, we can do 3.14 with just this change (okay with you Allison?). But then we should do 3.15 soon and get it sent upstream to blead. Best, David
Re: SPEC UPDATE: [rt.cpan.org #55602] Bug #12239 was a mistake
* "David E. Wheeler" [2010-04-20T12:27:11] > On Apr 19, 2010, at 7:39 PM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > > > This is done. I've bumped the version number, installed locally, confirmed > > that it DWIW, and Christopher Madsen has also confirmed that it's what he > > expects. > > > > Can we get 3.14 on the CPAN, then I'll work on getting in into blead, if not > > maint. > > Yes, although there are a few bugs I'd also like to get fixed: > > https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=56572 I'd really like to get the "perldoc command broken" into 5.12.1, and I think we'll have the best chance of that if the delta to the new version is as small as possible. Can we do 3.14 just for that (and the already-fixed warnings) and then 3.15 ASAP with further improvements? -- rjbs
Re: SPEC UPDATE: [rt.cpan.org #55602] Bug #12239 was a mistake
On Apr 19, 2010, at 7:39 PM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > This is done. I've bumped the version number, installed locally, confirmed > that it DWIW, and Christopher Madsen has also confirmed that it's what he > expects. > > Can we get 3.14 on the CPAN, then I'll work on getting in into blead, if not > maint. Yes, although there are a few bugs I'd also like to get fixed: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=56572 This is from our discussion the other day. Probably an easy fix. I don't think I have the tuits for it today, though. https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=56725 I suspect my patch fixes the issue, but I could use confirmation. Thanks, David
