Re^2: What is a really old version of Perl?

... getting geometrically shorter, is a crock.

Would you care to elaborate?

I don't remember seeing an official written support policy anywhere before 5.12.3 in 2011-Jan

Or for that matter a release schedule.

I like the new commitment from the community and I think two major versions, and 3 years of security fixes is enough official support -- with any backporting done by those who need it.

5.18.0 is projected for 2013-05-18, so the release schedule is fairly stable -- looks like a good idea to me and definitely not a crock.

For those who want to know see perlpolicy#MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT

This document codifies the support and maintenance commitments that the Perl community should expect from Perl's developers:

We "officially" support the two most recent stable release series. 5.12.x and earlier are now out of support. As of the release of 5.18.0, we will "officially" end support for Perl 5.14.x, other than providing security updates as described below.

To the best of our ability, we will attempt to fix critical issues in the two most recent stable 5.x release series. Fixes for the current release series take precedence over fixes for the previous release series.

To the best of our ability, we will provide "critical" security patches / releases for any major version of Perl whose 5.x.0 release was within the past three years. We can only commit to providing these for the most recent .y release in any 5.x.y series.

We will not provide security updates or bug fixes for development releases of Perl.

We encourage vendors to ship the most recent supported release of Perl at the time of their code freeze.

As a vendor, you may have a requirement to backport security fixes beyond our 3 year support commitment. We can provide limited support and advice to you as you do so and, where possible will try to apply those patches to the relevant -maint branches in git, though we may or may not choose to make numbered releases or "official" patches available. Contact us at <perl5-security-report@perl.org> to begin that process.

Comment on Re^2: What is a really old version of Perl?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: What is a really old version of Perl? (Instability == death knell) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 26, 2012 at 10:13 UTC
Assuming this was intended as a reply to my post rather than bulk88's. With 5 months between major versions, that equates to a whole 10 (TEN) months before all a vendors efforts to ensure the distributed version of perl works with all the distributed packages and tools it supplies written in perl are obsolete. It isn't long enough. It is no wonder that vendors (redhat et al) are choosing to stick with old versions. With Perl's major version changing twice (or 3 times) between vendors major releases, by the time they've frozen their distribution and taken it through their testing processes to a release, the Perl they included is not just out-of-date, it is out-of-official-support. With the recent rates of turnover, there is never a period of stability long enough for them to get from code-freeze to release. And if they've got to stick with an out-of-support version, why wouldn't they stick with the one they know. Or more likely, drop their dependency upon the unstable moving target that is Perl, throw in an old version as a token gesture, and move over to using Python. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. The start of some sanity?	[reply]
Re^4: What is a really old version of Perl? (Instability == death knell) by moritz (Cardinal) on Jun 26, 2012 at 10:25 UTC
I don't know where you've got your numbers from, but major releases are every 12 months, not 5. That's both the plan and how it worked out since the beginning of the time-based release schedule. Perl 6 - the future is here, just unevenly distributed	[reply]
Re^5: What is a really old version of Perl? (Instability == death knell) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 26, 2012 at 10:30 UTC
but major releases are every 12 months, not 5. I guess that depends upon whether you consider the x.x.0 release of anything a viable candidate for serious use. Many do not. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. The start of some sanity?	[reply]
Re^6: What is a really old version of Perl? (Instability == death knell) by Tux (Canon) on Jun 26, 2012 at 11:07 UTC
Re^7: What is a really old version of Perl? (Instability == death knell) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 26, 2012 at 11:30 UTC
Re^4: What is a really old version of Perl? (Instability == death knell) by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Jun 26, 2012 at 16:20 UTC
RedHat also stuck with their own custom-crippled version of Perl for 2 years. That's long enough. It feels like you are implying a piety and competence in the vendors and an insanity in the Perl side that is not supported by the facts. Though I personally don't expect the OS vendor to build or support the Perl I want to use for development at all. They can have whatever they want and we can have whatever we want; if lucky enough to work in that kind of shop. No one has to be a loser or a bad guy.	[reply]
Re^5: What is a really old version of Perl? (Instability == death knell) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 26, 2012 at 17:24 UTC
It feels like you are implying a piety and competence in the vendors and an insanity in the Perl side that is not supported by the facts. I'm not implying anything, just drawing attention to what is writ large all around. Platforms -- whether vendor or in-house -- move slowly. Whilst Linux distributions may allow individuals to co-install later versions of third-party packages, in-house platforms rarely do. A family member -- a UK civil servant -- has just taken delivery of her hot-desk/home working laptop. I helped guide her connecting it to her home wifi. She had trouble establishing the VPN connection, which turned out to be a switch on the machine in the wrong position. But whilst trying to guide her through investigating the problem, it rapidly became clear that the machine and OS is so locked down that it was impossible to do anything. No command line; no accessible local drives; no unsigned usb devices; nothing but what was installed and encrypted by the platform developers. It will not change for 3 years. A few years ago, I helped define and set-up the platform delivery and maintenance network for the 13 government departments that run an entire European country. It was more flexible than the UK setup, but it still required ministerial level sign-off to add 'extras' for particular sub-departments and individuals. And that required at least 6 months of trial before approval. The initial platform rolled out lasted 5 years before it got any substantial upgrade The 6 year wait for defined-or was far too long, but it's my opinion that this has now swung too far the other way I have no expectation of my opinion having any influence on those that make such decisions. But maybe some real-life examples and the opinions of someone like Matt Asay might. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. The start of some sanity?	[reply]