perl-diddler at tlinx
May 6, 2012, 3:40 PM
Jesse Luehrs via RT wrote:
Re: [perl #112792] Perl Major Release Doc Flaws (5.8.0->5.10.0)
[In reply to]
> On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 12:35:15PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> This is a severe bug in the way *releases are handled*....
>> The release note process ("What's New") **SHOULD** be vetted for
>> missing references to major UI changes...
>> .. 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 in 'minor' releases, that wouldn't have been
>> seen for those looking through major release notes to see what major
>> changes have been wrought.
> It's true that in the past, the way minor releases have been done has
> not been very clear or transparent. This process, however, has been
> fixed since at least 5.12 (possibly even 5.10). Introducing major
> changes in the 5.8.0 -> 5.8.1 transition was probably a mistake, but
> there's not really anything to be done about that now, and the relevant
> process has been fixed since then.
How was it fixed? I'm not saying it wasn't, but what is being done
differently now that wasn't before? I'm glad some people had the sense
to address this.
Some of us miss a 1-time important announcement and wondering why things
work they way they were documented to for the next 5 years. >;^>
I'm glad at least some people in this project have a >5th grade
reading level. I know my prose is extended, and I know, that
sometimes, it could be shorter, but many times, I can't express
what I want to say, with the details I feel are needed, in Reader's
I have to write for a general audience -- many of who will look at
the technical details of what I am saying, and if I don't cross as
many t's and dot as many i's as possible, I'm sure to get
misunderstandings or more questions. Thus I try to aim at enough
detail to answer questions that might arise (and end giving details
that, for most people never enter their mind). But it doesn't mean
it wasn't in someone's mind... thoroughness is rarely appreciated
as when it matches perfectly, it's not noticed, if it is overdone,
it's though to be needless verbiage, and if it is not enough, then
some wonder why you didn't
give more information in the first pace.
Is there a webpage of these processes now where I can go read about