You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@perl.apache.org by Fred Moyer <fr...@redhotpenguin.com> on 2010/04/16 04:02:17 UTC
RT 32992
https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=32992
Taking a poll again of who supports this issue resolution. Given that
the previous stable version of perl (5.10.1) has version.pm bundled
(current version is 5.12.0), I think this is safe move. 5.8.8 does
not have version.pm bundled, but it is easy enough to install.
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: RT 32992
Posted by Fred Moyer <fr...@redhotpenguin.com>.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Philip M. Gollucci
<pg...@p6m7g8.com> wrote:
> On 04/16/10 19:11, Fred Moyer wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have 5.6.x to test with?
>>
>> I know of a couple shops using 5.6, but they monkey patched it, and
>> will probably never upgrade.
>
> with mp2 ? wow.
mp1.
>> I see 5.8 being widely used still for years to come.
>
> yes sir.
>
> its all moot anyway until 2.0.5 is out the door.
I know Gozer is working on a 2.0.5 RM, but there's a possibility I may
be able to knock out *all* remaining Apache::Test bugs shortly if we
can get consensus on some of these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: RT 32992
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
On 04/16/10 19:11, Fred Moyer wrote:
> Does anyone have 5.6.x to test with?
>
> I know of a couple shops using 5.6, but they monkey patched it, and
> will probably never upgrade.
with mp2 ? wow.
> I see 5.8 being widely used still for years to come.
yes sir.
its all moot anyway until 2.0.5 is out the door.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
VP Apache Infrastructure; Member, Apache Software Foundation
Committer, FreeBSD Foundation
Consultant, P6M7G8 Inc.
Sr. System Admin, Ridecharge Inc.
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: RT 32992
Posted by Fred Moyer <fr...@redhotpenguin.com>.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Philip M. Gollucci
<pg...@p6m7g8.com> wrote:
> On 04/16/10 13:47, Vick Khera wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:02 PM, Fred Moyer wrote:
>>
>>> https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=32992
>>>
>>> Taking a poll again of who supports this issue resolution. Given that
>>> the previous stable version of perl (5.10.1) has version.pm bundled
>>> (current version is 5.12.0), I think this is safe move. 5.8.8 does
>>> not have version.pm bundled, but it is easy enough to install.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> How long do we plan to support 5.8 anyhow?
>
> You gotta drop 5.6.x 1st.
Does anyone have 5.6.x to test with?
I know of a couple shops using 5.6, but they monkey patched it, and
will probably never upgrade.
I see 5.8 being widely used still for years to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: RT 32992
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
On 04/16/10 13:47, Vick Khera wrote:
>
> On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:02 PM, Fred Moyer wrote:
>
>> https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=32992
>>
>> Taking a poll again of who supports this issue resolution. Given that
>> the previous stable version of perl (5.10.1) has version.pm bundled
>> (current version is 5.12.0), I think this is safe move. 5.8.8 does
>> not have version.pm bundled, but it is easy enough to install.
>>
>> +1
>
> How long do we plan to support 5.8 anyhow?
You gotta drop 5.6.x 1st.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
VP Apache Infrastructure; Member, Apache Software Foundation
Committer, FreeBSD Foundation
Consultant, P6M7G8 Inc.
Sr. System Admin, Ridecharge Inc.
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: RT 32992
Posted by Vick Khera <kh...@kcilink.com>.
On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:02 PM, Fred Moyer wrote:
> https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=32992
>
> Taking a poll again of who supports this issue resolution. Given that
> the previous stable version of perl (5.10.1) has version.pm bundled
> (current version is 5.12.0), I think this is safe move. 5.8.8 does
> not have version.pm bundled, but it is easy enough to install.
>
> +1
How long do we plan to support 5.8 anyhow?
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: RT 32992
Posted by Fred Moyer <fr...@redhotpenguin.com>.
Thanks for taking the time to lay out this solid argument Torsten. I
wasn't able to duplicate the issue either.
I've resolved https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=32992 by not
applying the suggested patch. I think the submitter may have had an
odd setup, but there wasn't enough evidence to show what exactly was
going wrong so that we could duplicate it.
Only 1 more open Apache::Test bug!
2010/4/16 Torsten Förtsch <to...@gmx.net>:
> On Friday 16 April 2010 04:02:17 Fred Moyer wrote:
>> https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=32992
>>
>> Taking a poll again of who supports this issue resolution. Given that
>> the previous stable version of perl (5.10.1) has version.pm bundled
>> (current version is 5.12.0), I think this is safe move. 5.8.8 does
>> not have version.pm bundled, but it is easy enough to install.
>>
> Sorry, but I don't understand the source of the problem. Is it that EU::MM
> uses version numbers of the form 6.06_12? We need at least 6.06, right?
> 6.06_01 will do as well, right?
>
> $ perl -Mversion -le 'my $v1="6.05_99"; my $v2="6.06"; print "less" if
> 0+$v1<0+$v2'
> less
> $ perl -Mversion -le 'my $v1="6.05_99"; my $v2="6.06"; print "less" if
> version->new($v1)<version->new($v2)'
> less
>
> $ perl -Mversion -le 'my $v1="6.06"; my $v2="6.06_01"; print "less" if
> 0+$v1<0+$v2'
> $ perl -Mversion -le 'my $v1="6.06"; my $v2="6.06_01"; print "less" if
> version->new($v1)<version->new($v2)'
> less
>
> There is a difference. Without version it is
>
> 6.05_99<6.06 and 6.06==6.06_01
>
> though with version it is
>
> 6.05_99<6.06 and 6.06<6.06_01
>
> But our case is 6.05_99<6.06. Obviously I have missed something.
>
> Torsten Förtsch
>
> --
> Need professional modperl support? Hire me! (http://foertsch.name)
>
> Like fantasy? http://kabatinte.net
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
Re: RT 32992
Posted by Torsten Förtsch <to...@gmx.net>.
On Friday 16 April 2010 04:02:17 Fred Moyer wrote:
> https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=32992
>
> Taking a poll again of who supports this issue resolution. Given that
> the previous stable version of perl (5.10.1) has version.pm bundled
> (current version is 5.12.0), I think this is safe move. 5.8.8 does
> not have version.pm bundled, but it is easy enough to install.
>
Sorry, but I don't understand the source of the problem. Is it that EU::MM
uses version numbers of the form 6.06_12? We need at least 6.06, right?
6.06_01 will do as well, right?
$ perl -Mversion -le 'my $v1="6.05_99"; my $v2="6.06"; print "less" if
0+$v1<0+$v2'
less
$ perl -Mversion -le 'my $v1="6.05_99"; my $v2="6.06"; print "less" if
version->new($v1)<version->new($v2)'
less
$ perl -Mversion -le 'my $v1="6.06"; my $v2="6.06_01"; print "less" if
0+$v1<0+$v2'
$ perl -Mversion -le 'my $v1="6.06"; my $v2="6.06_01"; print "less" if
version->new($v1)<version->new($v2)'
less
There is a difference. Without version it is
6.05_99<6.06 and 6.06==6.06_01
though with version it is
6.05_99<6.06 and 6.06<6.06_01
But our case is 6.05_99<6.06. Obviously I have missed something.
Torsten Förtsch
--
Need professional modperl support? Hire me! (http://foertsch.name)
Like fantasy? http://kabatinte.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org