2010/6/16 Tim Bunce <tim.bu...@pobox.com>: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 08:41:27AM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: >> 2010/6/16 Tim Bunce <tim.bu...@pobox.com>: >> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:10:38PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: >> >> Hi Tim, >> >> >> >> from my point of view, the current trunk of DBI is ready to be shipped >> >> as next development release. >> > >> > Not in MANIFEST: t/51dbm_file.t >> > Not in MANIFEST: t/52dbm_complex.t >> > >> > Should they be in the MANIFEST? >> >> They should, my fault. I'll do it now. >> >> > > Because it should be uploaded together with the development release of >> > > SQL::Statement, we should synchronize our uploads. >> > >> > Please tell me more about this. Why synchronize? >> >> DBI has test-depends (and recommendation) for SQL::Statement 1.28 >> and S::S has test-depends on DBI 1.612. > > I think the DBI shouldn't have test-depends for SQL::Statement. > The recommendation is fine though.
It has a test-depends - but the tests are skipped if S::S is not available. My though was in the direction "I want to have the feedback from CPAN testers regarding the new S::S". >> Some tests in DBI work only with SQL::Statement (and vice versa). > > Okay, but they're skipped if SQL::Statement isn't defined (right?) > so the tests don't strictly *depend* on SQL::Statement. No, they're simply skipped (or fallback to DBI::SQL::Nano) without SQL::Statement. I want to see if there're more incompatibilities like that one from Birmingham.pm. Those are not discovered without SQL::Statement :) Can you upload a DBI-1.611_92 now (with 2 more tests and the fixed Changes)? Jens
