- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:58:54 +0200
- To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> wrote: >[…] it's possible that you did not have anything directly to do with the >[mod_perl support] borkage :) Well, there's a first time for everything I guess. :-) >IMHO, the most important points in platform etc requisites are: >what is the runtime environment for the production service at v.w.o as >well as what do the active developers/testers have conveniently >available and are comfortable working with. Ok, I'll take that as the summary of the group's opinion on the topic. I personally don't think it's ambitious enough, but since I don't stand a chance in hell of doing that bit alone I'll defer to the consensus. That spells for the near term that I'll target my bleeding edge Fedora during development, fix any borkage for the variant of Debian running on qa-dev, and cross the bridge of getting it running on v.w.o when it comes time to release. >BTW, does anybody know whether the Perl requirement is actually 5.8.0+ >or let's say 5.8.4+? I've heard some bad things about early 5.8.x Perls >and Unicode. I don't know, but I would suspect «x» in «5.8.x» to be > 0, at least. But if we start with a requirement for 5.8.0 we can up it and document the reason if and when we get any concrete feedback on it. - -- These are the same customers you are referring to whom Microsoft thought would need MS Bob and the Talking Paperclip? One thing is to give them enough rope to hang themselves, but a boobytrapped thermonuclear weapon running on a rand(time) countdown... Is that really wise? - Me to MS rep. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3 iQA/AwUBQULofKPyPrIkdfXsEQJNXQCg5u3qKpnipfQpnkpG0amhl4VVP7oAoKat CbZ/CtEiND2iqxf+Z/N8BYhb =stdO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Saturday, 11 September 2004 11:58:59 UTC