Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:14:40 +, "Chris 'BinGOs' Williams"
said:
> Regarding the email subject, as far as I can tell from the reports I looked
through they
> were all relating to time issues with Makefile, CP::D::Build wouldn't be involved
> CP
On December 15, 2009, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
> Evidence is rather strong to me that CPANPLUS::Dist::Build 0.44 is
> producing bad reports.
>
> Several of my statistics indicate that CPANPLUS::Dist::Build=0.44 never
> produces PASS reports and instead produces many false FAIL reports.
>
> http:/
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:14:40 +, "Chris 'BinGOs' Williams"
> said:
> Regarding the email subject, as far as I can tell from the reports I looked
through they
> were all relating to time issues with Makefile, CP::D::Build wouldn't be
involved
> CP::D::MM would.
Sorry for th
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 03:28:54PM -0700, p...@0ne.us wrote:
> Hello,
>
>Thanks for warning us about this! I quickly looked at some of the
> reports and I can tell you with confidence that a lot of my FAIL reports
> is bad. I don't think it's CP:D:B's fault but the VM's fault. It seems
> li
Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
Evidence is rather strong to me that CPANPLUS::Dist::Build 0.44 is
producing bad reports.
Several of my statistics indicate that CPANPLUS::Dist::Build=0.44 never
produces PASS reports and instead produces many false FAIL reports.
Here a few samples:
http://pause.perl.o
Evidence is rather strong to me that CPANPLUS::Dist::Build 0.44 is
producing bad reports.
Several of my statistics indicate that CPANPLUS::Dist::Build=0.44 never
produces PASS reports and instead produces many false FAIL reports.
Here a few samples:
http://pause.perl.org:3000/reports_by_field?di
