perl-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Prime <>
Subject Re: [RELEASE CANDIDATE]: mod_perl-2.0.5 RC5
Date Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:13:25 GMT
 > #if defined(__GNUC__)&&  !defined(PERL_GCC_BRACE_GROUPS_FORBIDDEN)
 > #  define MUTABLE_PTR(p) ({ void *_p = (p); _p; })
 > #else
 > #  define MUTABLE_PTR(p) ((void *) (p))
 > #endif
 > So the solution for the problem is simple:
 > # ifdef MUTABLE_SV
 >    SV *sv=MUTABLE_SV(...);
 > # else
 >    SV *sv=(SV*)...
 > # endif

This fixed the problem i was having, and all the tests pass. the patch I 
used to the rc5 tree source is attached.  it'll probably have to be 
poked with to apply to svn.

Because the solution to this particular issue appears to be this simple, 
I think that it might be in our best interest to do rc6 with this 
change, and explicitly say we aren't going to support whatever we aren't 
going to support for the next release.  I am more than willing to be 
overruled on this though ;)


On 12-04-20 06:27 AM, Torsten Förtsch wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:45:59 Fred Moyer wrote:
>>> Apparently MUTABLE_CV doesn't exist under 5.8.8
>> Verified. Thoughts? +1 to ship as is. 5.8.8 isn't being shipped with
>> any new Linux or other OS distributions as far as I know.
> I think the central question is how many perl versions back we want to
> support. This has been discussed a few times already. Perl itself has settled
> on support for the current stable version plus one back. Current stable is
> 5.14. So, they support 5.14 and 5.12. But support for 5.12 will end soon as
> 5.16 is approaching. See L<perlpolicy>.
> As for modperl, I am not sure if we should bind our compatibility policy to a
> fixed number of perl/httpd versions. But something like "for 2.0.7 we are
> dropping support for perl versions older than 5.12, httpd versions older than
> ... and APR versions older than ..." in the beginning of the dev cycle would
> be good. Then we have to make sure that trunk is tested against the supported
> versions on a regular basis. Or perhaps we should make it a white list like
> 2.0.7 will support perl 5.12 .. 5.16, httpd 2.2.x, apr 1.4.x. Modperl 2.1 will
> support perl ..., httpd 2.4.x, ...
> If we cannot assure testing trunk against those versions regularly we must
> change that statement *before* RC1 is rolled.
> Producing release candidates is someone's work and time. Testing them is so,
> too. I understand that there must be a RC(n+1) if RCn introduced a bug while
> fixing another. But if RCn (with say n>2) has a compatibility issue that comes
> up only because modperl was first tested in the environment at that stage I
> think that does not qualify for another RC.
> If the interest in 5.8.8 compatibility is great enough to fix the issue (I
> don't say it is a bug) and Fred wants to roll another RC I'll test it. But
> IMHO RC5 is good enough to be 2.0.6.

View raw message