# from Andreas J. Koenig # on Monday 08 September 2008 15:16: >Since yesterday I have downloaded and analysed ~56000 testreports from >cpantesters and found ~135 distros that have been tested by both MB >0.2808 and 0.2808_03. There is only one result (Test-Group-0.12) that >looks bad but it turns out to be due to broken Test::More 0.81_01. All >others suggest that _03 is doing well.
Umm... okay. 1. I see a lot of m/0.2808_03 +FAIL/ in there. Did you chase-down several of those? Are you saying that having "some fail" on 0.2808 implies that "some fail" on 0.2808_03 means no regression, or did you manage to somehow correlate the 0.2808_03 fails to the same machines sending 0.2808 fails? 2. Where are these reports coming from? Again, the subject of false fails: I would hate for testers to be pummelling other authors with alpha M::B errors while the M::B maintainers are left blissfully ignorant. But those are just observations on the past. I think we're probably ready to ship. Thanks, Eric -- "It works better if you plug it in!" --Sattinger's Law --------------------------------------------------- http://scratchcomputing.com ---------------------------------------------------