On Wednesday 27 February 2008 09:40:58 James Keenan via RT wrote: > On Wed Feb 27 05:59:58 2008, coke wrote:
> > I would recommend marking whatever version came with 5.8; If we > > require a module that came with 5.10, we've effectively upped our base > > perl requirement, and I don't think we're quite ready to jump to 5.10 > > yet. They're dual-lived modules that work back to Perl 5.6.1 at least, so they won't force anyone to upgrade Perl. > The output of Test::Builder changed at 0.64_01, which falls in between > the 0.60 we had in the distro and the 0.72 which most (but not all) of > our developers are likely to be using now. > > AFAICT, the only *real* problem is that 6 tests in t/lib/Parrot_Test.t > were expecting very specific formatting of output messages in the case a > test failed. Those tests were premised on the wording of the error > messages in 0.60. > > Two possible solutions: Either eliminate those 6 tests entirely, or > rewrite the tests to make the regexes which need to be matched tolerant > of the differences between Test::Builder 0.60 and 0.72 in this regard. Tolerance +1. -- c
