2009/2/27 Michael G Schwern <[email protected]>: > demerphq wrote: >> 2009/2/27 Michael G Schwern <[email protected]>: >>>>> The more we do this, the more we're going to find "exceptions", the more >>>>> hacks >>>>> we have to put into place and what's going to wind up happening is we're >>>>> not >>>>> going to want to move things into ext. Making ext/ as much like the >>>>> normal >>>>> module process as possible smooths out the transition. >>>> I'll try to keep an open mind and assist where I can, but from where I >>>> sit this is just shifting time and attention away from important >>>> things like fixing known bugs and getting releases out the door toward >>>> putting out all the fires that will inevitably arise from breaking >>>> something that is known to be stable and working. >>> That's the general purpose excuse for any change. It doesn't fly, >>> volunteers >>> aren't interchangeable parts. You can't say "don't scratch that itch, >>> scratch >>> this one". I will freely admit I'm doing this because it's been a royal >>> pain >>> in my ass for years. >>> >>> I'm going to reverse the advice and instead of continuing to justify this >>> change I'll just implement it and see whether the sky remains up. >> >> Note you have been warned by two committers that this has undesirable >> consequences. > > The plan changed in the middle of this argument and I think that wast lost. I > no longer plan to do it with make subtests but rather by hacking t/TEST and > t/harness. It should work out to no visible change. Rather than untangle the > miscommunication in email its simpler and faster for me to just do it and let > the code speak for itself.
That sounds great! Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
