Suggestion regarding verbage in Canary::Stability

[Kent Fredric]

On 9 March 2016 at 23:27, Marc Lehmann <schmorp at schmorp.de> wrote:
>
> Hmm, what's the nature of the confusion, the exact meaning of the word
> "support", or something else?

It's hard to pinpoint the exact source. This email was born from
observing people coming in contact with Canary::Stability for the
first time, having a completely misguided reaction missing the message
entirely.

For instance, some people got the apparent impression that the nature
of that check was something that only made sense developer side.

One person expressed confusion in understanding "what is so bad about
perl 5.22?", because it wasn't apparent to them what warranted such a
warning.

>> Subsequently, this warning is just to let you know that risk is there
>> so you can make judgement calls on how to proceed"
>
> Sounds like a good idea (and fortunately easy to implement, thanks to it
> being a separate module) - do you think this should be just part of the
> "red" text messages, or should it be always included?

I would always include this message in the output, because it gives a
statement of intent, regardless of whether or not the current Perl
satisfies the stability criteria.

> Greetings,




-- 
Kent

KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL