On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Slaven Rezic <sla...@rezic.de> wrote: > I had setup a parallel smoker to find regressions between MB 0.35 and MB > 0.35_09 on a perl 5.10.1 system. > > So far the list of differences is this one (left is new MB, right is old > MB): > > Bio-Chado-Schema-0.04300 <DISCARD> vs. <PASS> > Bio-Graphics-1.992 <DISCARD> vs. <PASS> > DateTime-Format-Builder-0.7901 <FAIL PASS> vs. <PASS> > Module-Build-TAPArchive-0.04 <FAIL> vs. <PASS> > Test-DistManifest-1.005 <FAIL> vs. <PASS> > > I only looked into Test-DistManifest and it probably it fails because it > finds the new and unexpected MYMETA.yml. I'll look into the others maybe > later this day.
Thank you for taking that on. I've done a similar analysis (less dists that hit my distropref filters) and the full results are here: http://echo.dagolden.com/~xdg/mb-comparison/ I think Bio failures are due to the fact that they tend to set $VERSION = $Other::Modules::VERSION, which fails to eval. I've patched that in the repo already. They also tend to do some custom META.yml generation, which an API change broke. I'm going to examine providing backwards compatibility or else sending them a patch. M-B-TAPArchive fails because the test action now dies under TAP::Harness when there are failing tests to be consistent with the behavior under Test::Harness P5NCI fails due to the bumped prereq on ExtUtils::ParseXS. chromatic and Goro Fuji (who provided the patches that cause the failure) have been contacted and asked to sort it out I'll be chasing down the others over the next several days and will release 0.35_10 as the next release candidate (and will run regression tests again). -- David
