[HEADS-UP] switching default Perl to 5.22

[Chad J. Milios]

> On Aug 28, 2015, at 12:11 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 05:49:30PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> +--On 28 ao??t 2015 17:44:55 +0200 Mathieu Arnold <mat at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>> | +--On 28 ao??t 2015 17:34:49 +0200 Mark Martinec
>> | <Mark.Martinec+freebsd at ijs.si> wrote:
>> || 2015-08-28 17:16, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> ||> +--On 28 ao??t 2015 17:13:34 +0200 Kurt Jaeger <lists at opsec.eu> wrote:
>> ||> |> |> In one or two weeks, I'll be switching the default Perl version 
>> ||> to
>> ||> |> |> 5.22, and from now on, the new Perl will be added at the end of 
>> ||> May
>> ||> |> |> when released, and switched to at the beginning of September.
>> ||> |> | 
>> ||> |> | mod_perl is still broken with 5.22. Which is very sad. So maybe
>> ||> |> | it's premature to switch the default ?
>> ||> |> 
>> ||> |> But, it was building when I added Perl 5.22 in May, when did it 
>> ||> break ?
>> ||> | 
>> ||> | ohauer marked it broken on the 9th of June.
>> ||> 
>> ||> Oh, maybe it did not work and I told myself "never mind, mod_perl never
>> ||> works anyway"
>> || 
>> || The lang/perl5.20 will still be in ports, for anyone that needs it.
>> || 
>> || Being heavy Perl users we have switched to 5.22 when it hit the ports,
>> || and I have no complaints about it.
>> | 
>> | Oh, yes, Perl 5.20 will still be until 2018-12-31, as will 5.18 until
>> | 2017-12-31 and 5.16 until 2016-12-31 :-)
>> 
>> Scratch that, remove one year for all those 0:-)
> 
> There is definitely some acrimony in the 5.22 release.  I only mention
> Canary::Stability/stableperl bitter taste.  The TeXlive tlmgr tripped
> over the cosmetic but annoying regression in 5.22, there were no fix
> some time ago, despite the fact that the bug was known for porters for
> long time, see http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=1132751 (the article
> claims that the issue was fixed, I am not sure).
> 
> Previous policy, even if informal, was to wait for 5.xx.1 before bringing
> the port to the tree.  May be, we should wait for xx.1 before switching
> the default port, at least ?

I second this. I'm using 5.22 happily, however I think bumping the default is premature. I for one appreciate the conservative nature of FreeBSD and don't think we should feel compelled to keep up with the Joneses.