[Bioperl-l] dependencies on perl version

[George Hartzell]

Fields, Christopher J writes:
 > [...]
 > Right, it took ~8 yrs to go from 5.8 to 5.10.  I'd like to point
 > out that Python users are in the same boat: the Python version for
 > CentOS 5 is 2.4.3, and Biopython requires a minimum of python 2.5
 > (and recommends python 2.7).   
 > 
 > We can always state that perl 5.8 is supported for the upcoming
 > Bioperl release, but we're dropping v5.8 support for any future
 > releases. 

Do more than drop support for 5.8.

The Perl community has put a transparent and predictable process in
place for releasing [generally] better versions of the language.  It
means that Perl has a chance of continuing to be relevant, attracting
new talent and actually *fixing* some of the s&%t that gives Perl a
bad rap.  It gives people something to plan around, no one should be
surprised that v 5.X.Y is coming out in mid 20ZZ.

BioPerl should do the same thing, declare a release policy that trails
along with the Perl release schedule.  Keep it simple and no one can
argue with it.  Support Perl releases as long as the releases
themselves are supported.

Rather than expending energy supporting out of date platforms, put the
energy into being modern (or Modern...), better distro building and
packaging, testing, documentation and releasing so that the process of
staying current is painless.

Look forward.  Keep it interesting and fun.

Everyone running Mac OS 9 on their Pismo, raise your hand.  Anyone
make their living running sequencing gels in Plexiglas doohickeys on
their lab bench?

I'm not suggesting that the BioPerl community is free to make
arbitrary and capricious changes that makes it difficult for *anyone*
to get anything done.  Churn is a waste of time.

But why should the all-volunteer BioPerl community be stuck supporting
code from 12 years ago because it's cost effective for someone else to
avoid spending *their* $/time/people to stay up to date.

Those sites that value stability/maturity/stagnation so highly have
already accepted the cost/difficulty of nailing one of their feet to
the floor as they try to run forward.  They recognize and depend on
the benefits of having that stable base but generally they've also
accepted the costs associated with their restrictive choices.  They
know how to pull in separate kernel/driver updates so that they can
actually run on nearly modern hardware.  They know, and live with, the
fact that they're not going to have access to the shiny new stuff.
And they know how to stay up to date, when they need to, with the
software that their users need to be competitive (e.g. BioConductor
and R).

As long as (if/when...) updating a BioPerl release is something that
can reliably happen with a few cpanm invocations then the sites that
otherwise favor punctuated equilibrium will learn to handle gradual
change.

Those folks that are "stuck" on older releases always have the option
of supporting professional Perl programmers to keep older releases
going, backport changes, etc....  They're already buying support for
their platforms (or freeloading and coping), let them put bread on the
table at one of the bioinformatics consultancies or labs if they have
something special they need.

Have fun.  Use sharp tools.  Do cool science.  Build cool things.  No
one is paying you to be backwards compatible with the previous
millennium.

g.