in reply to Re^2: 5.18.0 is available NOW!in thread 5.18.0 is available NOW!
That is not the problem; the response to that is.
When considering a breaking change, I was taught to ask three questions:
Is the thing being 'fixed' actually manifesting itself in production code.
Has any real-world occurrence of the ACA actually been witnessed or reported?
Either by limiting the total breakage; or by selectively applying the breaking fix only when required.
Could the 'fix' have been limited to (say) only when taint was enabled?
Not the first. Not the best. Not the least effort or least worst; but the ONLY?
Is it necessary to randomise all hashes differently?
Wouldn't picking the same random hash initialisation, for all hashes for any given run, have been just as effective at stopping real-world exploits in the wild?
Where is the proof of concept code? (Without it, this is nothing more that idle speculation that has cost a lot of people a lot of time and effort.)
Wrong on every count. And posting anonymously proves it.
None - I don't code
0 - Ticker-tape is a purer representation of a Turing Machine
1 - A laptop screen or single monitor desktop workstation
1 - And it's cracked. And I like practicing my trade while lying on a bed of nails
2 - The standard dev kit suits me fine
3 - Fewer than three monitors wouldn't present enough insight into what I'm working on
4 - Everyone else has two or three. I'm not like everyone else
5 - This configuration reminds me of the 1987 5-cylinder VW Passat my parents let me drive in high school
6 - I saw such a thing on the Internet, and had to have it
6 - Because I haven't figured out how to add more
7 - I need all the luck I can get, for this code to work
8 - Because my power strip had eight outlets available
9 - A 3x3 array was the the most I could fit into my Faraday shielded SHTF headquarters
More than 9 - Most of them are just displaying graphs / mock code to make the boss think I'm doing something critical
Results (591 votes). Check out past polls.