On 3/28/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tassilo von Parseval wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:47:54AM +0100 Fergal Daly wrote: > > > >>A far simpler solution (that I've posted before recently) is to > >>output test "numbers" like > >> > >>.1.1 > >>.1.2 > >>.1.3 > >>.2.1 > >>.2.2 > >>.1.4 > >> > >>etc where the first number signifies the thread/process and the second > >>is just an increasing sequence within that thread. The . is there at > >>the start so that Test::Harness doesn't get upset. > >> > >>Interprocess comms using Storable seems like overkill and sounds like > >>the sort of thing that would have "fun" bugs, > > > > > > I really don't care how it is done, as long as it is eventually done at > > all. :-) > > > > As I can see it, there now exist at least two propositions on how to > > fix this problem. The ones responsible for Test::More/Test::Harness > > should take any of these proposed solutions and put them in. > > > > I just would like to be able to write test-scripts that fork without > > these annoying and ugly counter-mismatch messages. For that I sent one > > possible solution which ends my responsibilities in this matter. :-) > > > > Cheers, > > Tassilo > > Well three, if you include my "redirect fork output to seperate files, > and then merge back in at SIGCHLD/END-time" proposal, which would also > allow things like testing using other languages. > > Really, I just want a solution that works on all platforms, and doesn't > involve changing the TAP protocol, because of the number things > generating TAP that aren't in Perl, but being read by Perl. > > Changing protocols can have big consequences.
What's changing the protocol? F
