Stas Bekman wrote: > Geoffrey Young wrote: > >> >> Stas Bekman wrote: >> >>> I'm working out the details of using the new CLONE_SKIP feature. I was >>> thinking that it'd be useful to make a new branch for tha purpose. The >>> main problem is that at the moment we can't run the new tests >>> conditionally, since there is nothing to condition the support for >>> CLONE_SKIP :( >> >> >> >> sure, go ahead and create a new branch. I hope this one merges better, >> though ;) > > > Me too :) should we call it 'ithreads'? > > svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl/modperl/branches/ithreads?
sounds good. maybe the unstable- prefix like apreq and the rename did is also a good > I think 5.005_0x is a history now. At least I've noticed that more and > more modules on CPAN no longer bother to support it. I've stopped trying > to support it in my modules, where it relies on other modules which > already don't support it. actually, we need T::B 0.49 or greater for things to work, so we probably need to bundle it or require it as an external dependency. IIRC no perl has shipped with that version or higher yet. >> personally I'm very much in favor of dumping Test.pm if we can make >> Test::Builder do what we need. > > > Well, we can't yank Test.pm, because we need special straps under > mod_perl. such as 'plan $r, ...'. you can yank Test.pm and still have those straps. at least I think you can. the current -withtestmore allows plan() to work properly with $r, for example. > Though we could make Test.pm a proper > subclass of Test::More. there's already Test::Legacy for that, which might be thing work experimenting with and adding our foo to if need be. --Geoff --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
