On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:14, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
>> On Mar 8, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> #3 is still an absolute nonstarter, especially for a patch that we'd
>>> wish to backpatch.
>
>> You're at least going to want to exclude Safe 2.20 - 2.23, IIUC.
>
> If those aren't versions that are likely to be in wide use, no objection
> to that. I'm just concerned about arbitrarily breaking existing
> installations.
Here are a few version numbers for released perls:
perl | safe version
5.8.8 | 2.12
5.8.9 | 2.16
5.10.0 | 2.12
5.10.1 | 2.18
5.12 looks like it will release with > 2.25, 5.10.2 if it ever gets
released is currently at 2.18, 5.8.10 does not even seem to be on the
horizon.
So unless you installed a private version or your distro is providing
updates (I looked at: arch, debian, fedora and openbsd. And they
don't seem to.) it seems unlikely to see >2.18 in the wild.
