Andy Lester wrote in perl.qa :
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:52:49PM -0700, chromatic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> > I do NOT want to see that sort of thing as patches to Test::Harness.
>
>> I have a few ideas myself on how to make T::H a little more clean and
>> useful, but I'd have to do some refactorings myself on a private fork to
>> see how well they look in practice.
>
> And I'm OK with that. I just want, and I suspect 99% of any authors
> want, to have people work WITH me. "Hey, Andy, I've got some ideas on
> X, are you interested? Is this something you're looking at exploring?"
That said, now that TAP is well documented (yay), there's nothing wrong
with writing other harnesses.
For example, an harness that would run tests in parallel would be
interesting, but I don't think there would be much code to reuse from the
current T::H. (waving hands)
--
Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and a different
presentation, regardless of whether it works.
-- RFC 1925
