* Nigel Horne <n...@bandsman.co.uk> [2013-01-04T09:43:13] > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 02:19:43PM +0000, David Cantrell wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 09:07:32AM -0800, MPR wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Andreas Koenig > > > <andreas.koenig.7os6v...@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote: > > > > One might argue the ultimate goal of cpantesters is to find bugs. I'd > > > > say yes, but the bugs should be relevant. Bugs in very old and > > > > irrelevant combinations are *usually* noise that makes useful work > > > > harder for everybody involved. > > > You say "usually". Is there a case where it might be useful to test > > > and send reports against an old version? > > > > Sure. Even if a module's author doesn't care, the module's users do. > > +1
...but who is a "user" on a year old development version? It's madness that anyone would do this. The developement releases are *literally* no better than random snapshots taken during development. They are meant for easy testing of the perl under development. No one is going to fix bugs that affect only old blead releases. Anyone considering whether to use a module on an old blead is asking the wrong question. -- rjbs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
