From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F561F424 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 18:51:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752324AbdL0SvS (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:51:18 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57579 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751184AbdL0SvR (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:51:17 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71E6BC9D8; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:51:16 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=eGgydjKtgDeoR8wJ3CZHqW5lX+E=; b=GKYuE7 dbAsvf4Q3chKeil2xtLFj4T86GvgVDPFXo4wpuLtkCNa7hsLly7Z1PglnQVWNvyY EMk1ejbhT9q6FvDyeyBT7xqI9zg6nRWUlL3e5dk+HZMrYmPTfIChCKPi0GyPNlN/ jwGNBYC/TSoKHV+MFXKc4aQ69F+zz6vh3WkDE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=yNxY7n1u5iEj/QHLVdy1N92FB3js2uTh YogYgiW58XHibbR+8/Co9C7COJR4hEiNbA3LUggyFV5wLusvkJmtmt+3fTWfLPTy AcDBB4aig3ko1OL8YqqLp8n8NXNIx+3RHBtgkqeWNq9Fq/6qoR3jshhDRAadWjgd 2SXFm70YfeA= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBA1BC9D7; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:51:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5175CBC9D6; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:51:16 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Wong Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine , Jakub Narebski , Giuseppe Bilotta Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] perl: bump the required Perl version to 5.10.0 from 5.8.0 References: <20171223174400.26668-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20171224143831.GD23648@sigill.intra.peff.net> <871sjkrtrm.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20171224230839.f6r66u37wj4ai3sj@untitled> <87y3lrr78q.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <20171225015744.o47ackbwi2wbtkbv@untitled> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:51:15 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20171225015744.o47ackbwi2wbtkbv@untitled> (Eric Wong's message of "Mon, 25 Dec 2017 01:57:44 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EB27E7D6-EB36-11E7-9A1D-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eric Wong writes: > Fair enough, I haven't run 5.8 in a while, either. One concern > I have is it makes reviewing more difficult as the language gets > bigger and (even more) unfamiliar constructs pop up. This is > probably more important for git as most of us are not dedicated > Perl hackers. Yes, but that cuts both ways. When we do get a less amateur Perl folks who contribute and review, they are more and more likely to be fluent in modern versions of Perl than the ancient ones some of us who learned the tongue long time ago are familiar with. Telling them to limit themselves to what is also available in ancient versions is a burden that is backwards. So > What mostly bugs me about this is going from: > > "we'll accept patches to keep your old system working" > > to: > > "your software is too old, upgrade or go away" is something we need to be able to say at some point.