On 3 May 2015 at 10:49, Chad Granum wrote:
> Test-Stream and Test-Builder effectively adds 1 dep, that is not
> burdensome.
And before anyone suggests the total test time will be larger, the total
test time will be the same as it is now because the layout is divided such
that there's 2 suites i
On 3 May 2015 at 10:34, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> Essentially the only sane thing is to declare dependencies on both of
> the ecosystems. Then you can also run your tests against each of them.
>
There's a few things here that also need to be thought about, and that's
the future of merge/spli
Test::Stream will still have a no non-core dep policy, so depending on both
Test-Stream and Test-Builder effectively adds 1 dep, that is not burdensome.
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis
wrote:
> * Sawyer X [2015-05-02 23:05]:
> > Effectively what happened/happens is that, whi
* Sawyer X [2015-05-02 23:05]:
> Effectively what happened/happens is that, while plugins are now able
> to provide two different implementations without worrying about
> backwards compatibility (we originally wanted it to be seamless but
> turned out to be very hard), most plugins had a shared co
Right now I am working on a branch that removes the legacy/backcompat stuff
that permeates Test-Stream. This is no small task, expect it sometime in
the next week or so. I am sticking with the Test::Stream namespace for now,
no reason to switch it at this point.
Once this branch is done we can sta
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> Ugh. lowercase "test2" is registered. Guess that's a non-player then :(
>
For those not on IRC, it's a currently non-indexed namespace that appears
to have been indexed by mistake when someone uploaded a CGI application.
I've emailed Neil
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 7:31 PM, David Golden wrote:
> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Kent Fredric
> wrote:
>
>>
>> That is, conceptually, its possible that a misguided author of a
>> distribution at the same level as say, Test::Differences, thinks it wise to
>> simply rewrite their existing co
On 3 May 2015 at 08:37, Chad Granum wrote:
> Looks like Test2 is already taken, which is odd considering a permission
> check on pasue did not show it, but when I tried to upload something it
> failed.
https://pause.perl.org/pause/authenquery?pause99_peek_perms_by=me&pause99_peek_perms_query=t
Looks like Test2 is already taken, which is odd considering a permission
check on pasue did not show it, but when I tried to upload something it
failed.
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> On 3 May 2015 at 08:24, Chad Granum wrote:
>
>> I like the Test2 Idea, mind if I uploa
On 3 May 2015 at 08:24, Chad Granum wrote:
> I like the Test2 Idea, mind if I upload a module real quick to first-come
> the namespace? or are you going to claim it?
+1 =)
--
Kent
*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
I like the Test2 Idea, mind if I upload a module real quick to first-come
the namespace? or are you going to claim it?
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis
wrote:
> * David Golden [2015-05-02 19:35]:
> > On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Kent Fredric
> wrote:
> > > That is, conce
* David Golden [2015-05-02 19:35]:
> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > That is, conceptually, its possible that a misguided author of
> > a distribution at the same level as say, Test::Differences, thinks
> > it wise to simply rewrite their existing code in the new framewor
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> So as the author of Test::WWW::WebKit, I'd have to offer two different
> variants of my module, even though the only difference would probably be
> the
> "use Test::More" line?
>
>
Yes. Though you could, if you wish, declare Test::WWW::Webk
On 3 May 2015 at 07:49, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> To me this future sound like an even larger burden for downstream.
>
The burden of extra namespace maintenance is annoying. Sure. But the price
of the namespace itself is basically free.
And a "burdensome" system as pertaining to *new* development
Here is what I want to do.
I want to release a Test-Stream dist on cpan. It will say in its POD that
it is still experimental, largely because of this debate right now. This
release will not be tied to Test::Builder, Test::More, etc. There will be a
limited compatibility module people can choose t
On Saturday 02 May 2015 15:36:48 David Golden wrote:
> There are only a handful of really commonly used Test::* libraries and I
> suspect that they could be forked to use Test::Builder2 trivially, as few
> of them wind up needing the interesting new bits. Only the Test::* modules
> that were monk
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> What would that mean from a user perspective? Would one be able to mix
> Test::More and Test::More2 (and higher level modules based on them) in the
> same test file?
>
No, I meant that a .t file would have to choose one or the other. So, f
On 3 May 2015 at 07:03, Stefan Seifert wrote:
> What would that mean from a user perspective? Would one be able to mix
> Test::More and Test::More2 (and higher level modules based on them) in the
> same test file?
>
I initially thought this was desirable, but am now against that idea, and
am lea
On Saturday 02 May 2015 13:31:21 David Golden wrote:
> I think that if we ship a Test::More2, then such a release should encourage
> people to leave Test::Foo alone and fork it to Test::Foo2 instead. Then a
> new ecosystem can build up around it without sacrificing the existing one.
What would t
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> That is, conceptually, its possible that a misguided author of a
> distribution at the same level as say, Test::Differences, thinks it wise to
> simply rewrite their existing code in the new framework.
>
We've seen that horror show in Danc
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis
wrote:
>
> How do we get from there to a failure freaky enough to require funky
> debugging tricks down in the perl guts?
>
That's the crucial question to me. Making a change and not seeing the
problem re-occur isn't good enough without a pro
On 3 May 2015 at 02:32, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> That feels like “this is the point in our programme where we rethink the
> approach” to me; like a strong hint that the journey went down the wrong
> turn somewhere quite a ways back.
>
I am in agreement, and a few of us are now exploring the
* Chad Granum [2015-05-01 23:30]:
> […]
I find this frightful. This is not just some random module; it is at the
heart of the ecosystem. And it’s solving what is at its essence a very
simple problem, for which pure Perl should be perfectly adequate. The
design and implementation ostensibly even *
23 matches
Mail list logo
