Re: Any votes on this??

2003-10-21 Thread gregames 
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:

  * isn't ap_die() broken with recognizing recursive errors

Have you had a chance to run it through the perl-framework testsuite?
If so I'd give it +.5.
Does the perl test suite check error handling at all?  (just curious)

Greg

Re: Any votes on this??

2003-10-20 Thread Jeff Trawick 
Jim Jagielski wrote:

Jeff, would it be OK if we skip this for 1.3.29 and potentially
add it in for 1.3.30?
yessir; I think that's the right thing to do

Re: Any votes on this??

2003-10-20 Thread Jim Jagielski 
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
> At 01:53 PM 10/20/2003, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >>* isn't ap_die() broken with recognizing recursive errors
> >>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> +1: jeff, jim
> >
> >I looked at it and it seemed reasonable but it stretches far enough beyond
> >the bounds of my knowledge of its implications that I decided not to vote.
> >Consider this a +0.
> 
> I'm afraid I'm so far away from 1.3 that I'm in Cliff's boat, a strong +0 :)
> Have you had a chance to run it through the perl-framework testsuite?
> If so I'd give it +.5.
> 

Yes and it passes. The rub is that it changes behavior of
modules that may be doing the "wrong thing" and I'm not sure
if I wish to do that at this stage...

Jeff, would it be OK if we skip this for 1.3.29 and potentially
add it in for 1.3.30?

-- 
===
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
  "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
 will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

Re: Any votes on this??

2003-10-20 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr. 
At 01:53 PM 10/20/2003, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>* isn't ap_die() broken with recognizing recursive errors
>>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> +1: jeff, jim
>
>I looked at it and it seemed reasonable but it stretches far enough beyond
>the bounds of my knowledge of its implications that I decided not to vote.
>Consider this a +0.

I'm afraid I'm so far away from 1.3 that I'm in Cliff's boat, a strong +0 :)
Have you had a chance to run it through the perl-framework testsuite?
If so I'd give it +.5.

Bill

Re: Any votes on this??

2003-10-20 Thread Cliff Woolley 
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>* isn't ap_die() broken with recognizing recursive errors
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> +1: jeff, jim

I looked at it and it seemed reasonable but it stretches far enough beyond
the bounds of my knowledge of its implications that I decided not to vote.
Consider this a +0.

--Cliff