On the current Test::More-to-be

This is my (hopefully final) followup to the Test::More debacle. On April 16th I participated in a closed door discussion about the current direction of this bedrock module. An overwhelming majority was content with how things were handled, thus the work is slated for continuation. My positi

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > This is my (hopefully final) followup to the Test::More debacle. > I doubt it. :-) Or, rather, I hope not. > On April 16th I participated in a closed door discussion about the current > direction of this bedrock module. An overwhelmi

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

I do not consider Test-Stream to be experimental. I am also unhappy with the churn that has occurred, and recognize that it makes things hard for people who are spot-checking me, specially since it means starting over. - Changes up to and including _105 were directly a result of the punchlis

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

_110 uploaded as expected, documentation changes only. Unless someone else reports something that NEEDS to be fixed, nothing will be touched until stable. On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Chad Granum wrote: > I do not consider Test-Stream to be experimental. I am also unhappy with > the churn th

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

I consider this ticket a blocker: https://github.com/Test-More/test-more/issues/589 I realize that it's hard to replicate and we may need to see if the problem crops up elsewhere for confirmation, but sporadic global destruction memory errors isn't something I want released to the world. David

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

I have no problem blocking on #589, so long as it remains actionable. We need to try to narrow down on the problem, and if possible reproduce it somewhere else. Does this occur on any other cpan module? Would you mind trying to find out? Does it still happen in mobogdb in a fresh/new perlbrew if y

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

I have attached 5 patches, can you try each one individually and see if any of them make your problem go away? Some of these patches will break Test-Simples test suite, Best option is to -I /path/to/patched or use a localib and apply the patch in there. None of these patches are actually somethin

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

Actually, try this one first: On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Chad Granum wrote: > I have attached 5 patches, can you try each one individually and see if > any of them make your problem go away? > > Some of these patches will break Test-Simples test suite, Best option is > to -I /path/to/patc

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chad Granum wrote: > Until we find a way to reproduce this in a condition that is not "xdg's > machine and module" would you mind running the tests with a handful of > patches (1 at a time) if I get them to you asap? (to help me hone in on the > problem) > I can

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

Hi David, * David Golden [2015-04-29 18:00]: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > > On April 16th I participated in a closed door discussion about the > > current direction of this bedrock module. An overwhelming majority > > was content with how things were handled, thus

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > that is the one conversation I unfortunately did not attend, so I have > no way of knowing what you refer to. The stuff you quoted from Peter’s > appears totally innocuous to me, as well, so that does not help me. Can > you be more exp

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

On 04/30/2015 11:23 PM, David Golden wrote: I'll accept his statement that his way of expressing his point of view is innocent rather than malicious. It really does not matter to me whether my expression is seen as malicious. What is of paramount and exclusive importance to me is that my mess

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > On 04/30/2015 11:23 PM, David Golden wrote: > >> I'll accept his statement that his way of expressing his point of view is >> innocent rather than malicious. >> > > It really does not matter to me whether my expression is seen as > maliciou

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

On 05/01/2015 11:23 AM, David Golden wrote: On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Peter Rabbitson > wrote: On 04/30/2015 11:23 PM, David Golden wrote: It nonetheless implies (a) that few obstacles remain I am claiming exactly this. A hastily put togeth

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

* David Golden [2015-05-01 11:25]: > To the last point, in hindsight, I wish we'd had that discussion first > at the hackathon as I think it might have influenced the others. Mea > culpa. Or possibly, we wouldn't have gotten there without the early > warm discussions as warm-ups. Those were exact

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > > Do we just accept that stuff might go flowing downriver? I certainly hope not. I think we incorporate what we've learned into discussions going forward. David -- David Golden Twitter/IRC: @xdg

Language nit [ was: On the current Test::More-to-be ]

On 04/30/2015 11:23 PM, David Golden wrote: "an overwhelming majority was content with how things were handled..." I must admit a lapse of mine - until this morning I was embarrassingly unaware of the actual definition of the adjective 'content' [1]. I have been using it incorrectly to expre

Re: Language nit [ was: On the current Test::More-to-be ]

On 1 May 2015 at 18:47, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > The rest of my message remains as is. > > [1] English as a 3rd language, work with me here. > Its slightly subjective and contextual how you translate it, and there's connotative and denotative ways of using it. For instance, people sometimes use