Re: Any reasons not to release DBI 1.614?

2010/9/1 H.Merijn Brand <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:07:46 -0700, Darren Duncan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim Bunce wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 08:55:32AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> >> On Aug 31, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> It's back in. I may remove it for 1.615 or, more likely, may leave it out and
>> >>> individual developers deal with failure reports on perl 5.13.3+/5.14.
>> >> You may “remove it…or, more likely, leave it out”? Huh?
>> >
>> > Ug. I meant "may restore it or, more likely, leave it out".
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Tim.
>>
>> I suggest releasing DBI *without* the pollute stuff and let the drivers catch
>> up.  The drivers would still work with Perls before 5.13 without changes.  In
>> particular, it will make it much easier to test that drivers are correct if DBI
>> isn't muddling things up by perpetuating the pollution. -- Darren Duncan
>
> Though I mentally support this stand, I'm a bit worried about DBD's
> that do not have active maintainers and will suddenly fail when DBI is
> upgraded and there will be noone available for a quick fix.

They will fail sooner or later regardless the action DBI takes. Finally with
5.14.0 they're broken. I would vote for a DBI-1.614 release with (last time)
pollution enabled and quickly after 1.614 is uploaded, an 1.614_01 follows
without the PERL_POLLUTE define.

I learned during my career of developing concerning dealing with errors:
"Die early". When some drivers will continuously fail, probably someone
comes who will maintain the drivers. But why take action as long everything
is fine (even if it's only pretended).

/Jens