To the extent that some of Acme is just experimental, I think it's potentially useful to run it on multiple platforms. There is the risk of an Acme::Melt::Your::Hard::Drive, but I've actually only disabled a handful of Acme modules in my smokers.
-- David On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Bob goolsby <bob.gool...@gmail.com> wrote: > An a matter of curiosity, since the Acme:: name space is intended as a > joke, do we really need to /care about running the test-harness (if > any)? I've always assumed that the joke was sufficient unto itself, > and no one in the right mind would be using Acme modules in any real > work. (I know, every few months someone pops up on PerlMonks asking > abut using Acme::Bleach to 'protect' their code....) > > > Bob G > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Barbie <bar...@missbarbell.co.uk> wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 08:00:44AM -0500, David Golden wrote: >>> You may want to add this to your skip lists or distroprefs immediately >>> if you're testing Acme modules. >> >> Not necessarily sure that is a good idea. Yes it will take ages to test, >> but if it's exercising some of the heavy weight distributions, it might >> uncover broken dependencies. >> >> Admittedly the dependencies are likely to be tested with each release, >> but it looks to be a useful test distribution, especially for the >> intention Adam had in mind. >> >> Cheers, >> Barbie. >> -- >> 2009 QA Hackathon <http://qa-hackathon.org> >> Birmingham Perl Mongers <http://birmingham.pm.org> >> Memoirs Of A Roadie <http://barbie.missbarbell.co.uk> >> >> >> >
