I am certainly not going to consider 24 hours of silence a reason to stamp a stable label on it. Rjbs and I have a status meeting every week, if things were completely silent for 2 weeks we were going to evaluate the situation and move on from there.
In addition we still need people from the qa hackathon in berlin to confirm or reject the assertion that their punch list items are satisfied before the Test::Builder component can be marked stable. If they choose to be silent on this thread we will reach out to them directly. My point is, things are not going to happen over night, and silence will not be taken as a seal of approval. That said, indefinite silence will also not be considered a blocker past a point, but no time limits have been set either way. -Chad On Feb 6, 2016 2:13 AM, "Kent Fredric" <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 February 2016 at 08:14, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If there is anything in these > > distributions (Test2 in particular) that makes you uncomfortable, you > > need to speak now. > > > Mentioning here for visibility: > > As with Test-Stream where the apparent silence lead to a premature > conclusion that finalisation was appropriate, I feel interpreting the > current lull in activity in the same way equally premature. > > I've seen a proposal floating around that might raise our ability to > be confident about the feature set of Test2 before requiring its > implementation/feature-freeze. > > Just the people who I talked to who implied they were going to present > said proposal haven't yet had the tuits to do so yet. > > > -- > Kent > > KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL >
