Re: done_testing()
On Feb 21, 2009, at 10:54 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: There is Perl 5 style backwards compatibility where you never, ever break anything for years and years and years and even for code that you're not sure even exists. That's what chromatic is on about. And then there's backwards compatibility where you try not to clearly break everyone's well-written code! I think that second one has value. Agreed, but that's what a deprecation cycle is for. That said, just a couple days ago I sent along a proposal to the TAP list to change the way the TAP version works to allow incompatible changes to the protocol. Then we can work on sub-plans without having to bend over backwards to compatibility. Right! PS The signature choice was entirely random. Eerie. -- The past has a vote, but not a veto. -- Mordecai M. Kaplan Amen to that! D
Re: done_testing()
David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Feb 21, 2009, at 10:54 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: > >> There is Perl 5 style backwards compatibility where you never, ever break >> anything for years and years and years and even for code that you're >> not sure >> even exists. That's what chromatic is on about. >> >> And then there's backwards compatibility where you try not to clearly >> break >> everyone's well-written code! >> >> I think that second one has value. > > Agreed, but that's what a deprecation cycle is for. TAP currently has no deprecation cycle. That's what I introduced earlier. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tap/current/msg00411.html -- 87. If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it. -- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army http://skippyslist.com/list/
Re: done_testing()
On Feb 22, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: I think that second one has value. Agreed, but that's what a deprecation cycle is for. TAP currently has no deprecation cycle. That's what I introduced earlier. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tap/current/msg00411.html Good! D
