On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 01:11:35AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 04:45:46AM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:00:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > > Simon Cozens submitted a patch which failed the test
> >
> > ...and MJD and Jarkko and I worked on it and we put together something
> > which was OK.
>
> Both Simon's and Peter's patches...
> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2000-11/msg01131.html
> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2001-02/msg00913.html
>
> Fail mjd's (revised) test suite.
> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2000-11/msg01256.html
>
> Fortunately, its the test suite that's wrong! :) Doncha love a happy
> ending?
>
> Here's the code patch against bleedperl along with a revised version
> of mjd's suite. The revision of the test isn't quite complete. What
> should really be done to prevent future mis-failures is compare
> PERL5OPT switches vs those on the command line. Something like:
>
> PERL5OPT='-Mstrict -w' ./perl -e 'print $::x'
> ./perl -Mstrict -w -e 'print $::x'
>
> The proper way to write the test is to make sure both do the same thing.
> But this is good enough for now.
>
>
> --- t/run/runenv.t 2001/02/18 05:58:06 1.1
> +++ t/run/runenv.t 2001/02/18 06:09:10
Applied, thanks.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
