New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Perl Major Release Doc Flaws (5.8.0->5.10.0) #12090
Comments
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgCreated by perl-diddler@tlinx.orgIf someone has not upgraded through each point release of perl -- This practice was not (and often, is not) adhered to resulting in In 5.8.0, full UTF8 support on I/O was introduced: This was found to be an inconvenient interface, and in Perl 5.8 the There has been no mention of a change in any major release since The fact that it is NOT this way in 5.10, .12, .14 (likely .16), .. Only if one is involved in the day-to-day internal politics and development of perl and keeps track with every 'minor bug fix release' (of the sort that isn't to break compatibilty) or make incompatible interface changes, might one have seen in some footnote or other that this was no longer the case. Apparently, someone slipped in a major UI change into a "minor release", and got it through approvals -- something that should never have happened. But maybe it was somehow consider an 'emergency so dire that normal release processes had to be ignored'. But if that was the case, one would have expected to see some note, or mention of this major change when 5.10.0 came out -- with major UI changes since This was not the case. I couldn't figure out why so many progs broke that were re-written to take advantage of the specification of 5.8.0. I may have updated at 5.8.4 or 5.8.6 -- But usually when my distros upgrade So I can easily see my jumping at the new support -- and finding it great! -- but then not seeing some footnote, that a Major incompatibility was introduced in 5.8.1. This major step forward was quietly removed. No mention in the next 5.10.X version my distro released...(there might have Even more ironic is that 5.10.0 talks about more functions being converted to UTF-88 (Win32::GetLongPathName), rather than latin1 so instead of a mention of perl's backstep, we see what looks like progress. From then on, I see only mention of increasing compatbility... *BLECH*. Slipping these types of changes in without notes in major releases seems completely vacuous at best, if not irresponsible. Too often changes are being made in the perl package by "perl-community insiders", who have no realistic view of how their changes are seen or will affect those who are not day-to-day members of the perl community, or users who use perl without being "of perl"... From my point of view, 5.10, 5.12, and 5.14 are all broken as no mention was Someone may have thought they were getting pleasing their 'core friends' by reverting that functionality, but others were relying on it and who didn't get the dday-to-day sub-release messages, that sound like a posix or w3c committee yanking a standard around from meeting to meeting. Justing by the living Html5 website, I get that this practice isn't very well received by people trying to actually use released versions. From my perspective, I'll have to make sure the env var PERLIO is set, and either fail if not, or set it to the default as specified in the in the last major release to mention a change in this area. That will ensure compatibility by default with major releases, putting the onus of change on those who slipped in major UI changes in a minor release, to invoke a 'change method' (set the ENV var, whatever), as it should have been in the first place. It's not that I even agree or disagree with the engineering reasons that went into the decision -- but the way the process was done was (and still is) decidedly broken. If perl wants to move forward, the whole community needs to be more responsible about intro'ing changes in major releases, with deprecation announcements and compatibility options if at all possible (there may be some that are impossible, I dunno, but this wasn't one of them). This is a severe bug in the way *releases are handled*, -- i.e. I'm not so dillusional to think that anyone would follow the major specifications as described in the major releases' release notes. The release note process ("What's New") **SHOULD** be vetted for missing references to major UI changes that were slipped in during "minor releases" so no one else will find these changes "suprising" years later. I may be the only one on this list that this is news to, but I doubt I'm the only perl user in the world who has missed 'inconsequential, minor'[sic] changes like this. This may only be a call for changing the process forward to either roll all **major changes** into the next V's what's new (non-minor changes that were done Yeah, this may look like a rant. But if you think what I'm saying has no merit, you are part of the problem that is killing perl. Perl Info
|
From @doyOn Sun, May 06, 2012 at 12:35:15PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
It's true that in the past, the way minor releases have been done has -doy |
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @iabynOn Sun, May 06, 2012 at 12:35:15PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Yes, its an unhelpful rant. I read about halfway through before giving up, being unable to determine Could you please provide a succinct description, in a few lines, about -- |
From @rjbsOn Sun May 06 12:53:34 2012, davem wrote:
Hey, at least she's consistent. |
@rjbs - Status changed from 'open' to 'rejected' |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgJesse Luehrs via RT wrote:
How was it fixed? I'm not saying it wasn't, but what is being done Sidenote: I have to write for a general audience -- many of who will look at Is there a webpage of these processes now where I can go read about |
From @doyOn Sun, May 06, 2012 at 03:40:28PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
perldoc perlpolicy -doy |
From @shadowcat-mst
We didn't do it again. Additionally, this was a doc flaw between 5.8.0 and 5.8.1. It was, I'll Therefore, filing this bug against 5.14.2 is incredibly unkind and unfair The fact that people actually tried to respond in spite of your accusation
Most of us do. That's why we find it so disappointing that you appear not If your audience is so stupid they're unable to follow a link to a clarifying But, short form: perl 5.8.0 was a disaster. The people involved at the time This is unfortunate. However, what already *did* nearly kill perl was a failure to release at all Filing such a horribly negative bug criticising something that was a many These are the people who have rescued perl from a slow death. These are the people who are making every effort to ensure that a perl5 Your brand of unconstructive, overly verbose, entitled bullshit is unfair, I strongly suggest that you stop and think about how your words are If you have the slightest shred of empathy and a functioning theory of Once you have realised this, I'd suggest that stepping back, apologising If you can do that, you'll be far more likely to get the sort of responses Sadly, your current attitude achieves nothing except for burning huge amounts So, in summary of my own verbiage: Stop. Step back. Try and act like an adult human being. It's amazing how much better the response you get that way tend to be. -- http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our Catalyst |
perl-diddler@tlinx.org - Status changed from 'rejected' to 'resolved' |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgMatt S Trout via RT wrote:
Oh but you did. You acted like an over-the top ass toward someone trying to So that misinformation was out there for long time. Now, multiple years Your who over-the-top rant seems to be based on an inability for you to The subject said the bug occurred in 5.8->5.10. It didnt' say it
Another miracle of your inability to read. I never said they had to
Sorry, I it was a fast write - I tried to dumb it down as best I could, but
I some times have to read dense material 3-5 times. That you only read
Unkind? It's accurate and aimed at the release it happened in --
The intelligent once would realize it wasn't directed at them but at
tend to respond to people in the say they respond to me. You say you
You haven't known me for long, apparently, since no matter how I
I will take each issue on it's merits as I would expect any other
Maye if that stopped happening I could make *positive* progress rather
Stop trolling and going off on people over things they cannot control.
Human being as animals... most of whom don't act well.
What amzing is the many ways I've tried, and have it make no difference. now since this whole thing started by you not knowing what version i Maybe you should yell at those who create the data from the forms? |
From @iabynOn Thu, May 10, 2012 at 06:22:25PM -0700, Linda W wrote:
In 5.8.0, a new feature was introduced, whereby a utf8 locale set in the Due to an oversight, that announcement wasn't copied into the 5.10.0 But note that this mis-feature wasn't in 5.8.1, 5.8.2, .. 5.8.9, or for Note that in general, adding unicode support is *very* hard to do; around It regarded by some that perl currently has amongst the most complete and -- |
From @nwc10On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
And if the people offering advice were not aware of that, they weren't
Also, IIRC, the idea of enabling things based on a UTF-8 locale was what the (This stuff is *still* screwed up. Ex-work upgraded a system from really-old (Note also the fun Python 3.0 had by assuming that a UTF-8 locale means that And that's not the only example of Unicode theory proving to be badly wrong /[^ß]/i doesn't match what people expect, and this "ß" =~ /(s)(s)/i is positively unimplementable.
Which is also why we have some of the pain of an early adopter. Nicholas Clark |
From @ppisarOn 2012-05-11, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote:
This has nothing to do with Unicode. You have the same problem in -- Petr |
From @LeontOn Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Petr Pisar <ppisar@redhat.com> wrote:
I don't think ISO ever recommended that "ß" should positively match Leon |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgDave Mitchell wrote:
Alot of people missed that. When I coudn't long after 5.8.1,
Really? That may be true of 50% of the people....but some like the
That's one of the most frustrating things... my public bragging about Thus that among other incompats since then lead into my writing the |
From perl-diddler@tlinx.orgNicholas Clark wrote:
*bingo*. Why do you think I've almost never contributed code in Anything that I've written that might have been good enough to |
From @khwilliamsonOn 05/11/2012 05:54 AM, Leon Timmermans wrote:
ISO-8859-1 does not define any folds, much less multi-character ones. Perl does case insensitive matching under locale (including 8859 ones) |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#112792 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT112792$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: