Someone needs to take jwz aside...
djk at tobit.co.uk
Thu Apr 21 08:59:34 BST 2011
On 20/04/11 23:17, Peter Edwards wrote:
> Imagine you're supporting a 3 year old code base that needs specific
> versions of DBIx::Class, Catalyst, Moose and Class::MOP to make it run, and
> when you do a upgrade via yum or apt-get or cpan random things break in your
> regression tests and you don't have the budget to go fix all of them. (No,
> that's not where I work now but it is a real world situation.)
Which is a pretty serious indictment of CPAN and the attitudes of the
people that "maintain" software there.
How can anyone expect businesses to use perl and CPAN when stuff is
likely to break (sometimes big time) when one upgrades the toolchain?
Why does stuff on CPAN so frequently not maintain backward compatibility?
More information about the london.pm