On 1/15/2015 2:43 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
What is a PR? A bugzilla ticket?
Yes, a problem report. Sorry for using terminology from another context.
Thanks. I wasn't sure if you meant a press release about the bug but
that seemed overkill...
If there are other perl critic warnings, they
There are some other perlcritic warnings about modifying $_ in list
functions
(in sa-update, spamassassin, spamd). Opening a PR would be warranted.
What is a PR? A bugzilla ticket?
Yes, a problem report. Sorry for using terminology from another
context.
If there are other perl critic
--On Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:48 AM -0500 "Kevin A. McGrail"
wrote:
(in sa-update, spamassassin, spamd). Opening a PR would be warranted.
What is a PR? A bugzilla ticket?
PR is generally short for "problem report". So yes, I'd guess a bugzilla
ticket.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibs
On 1/15/2015 11:09 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
:-) Well I don't want to change the vetting process for a release and
xt/60_perlcritic.t has been used for years on the code base.
Suggestions what we can do to resolve the issue that also passes that
test so we don't have to go down that rabbithole?
:-) Well I don't want to change the vetting process for a release and
xt/60_perlcritic.t has been used for years on the code base.
Suggestions what we can do to resolve the issue that also passes that
test so we don't have to go down that rabbithole?
There are some other perlcritic warnings abo
On 1/14/2015 3:11 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Yep that was done to pass the XT tests for a release. Joe can you
look at those returns again?
That advice from perlcritic needs to be taken with a large grain of
salt.
In the past I have been bitten by this several times. It is generally
safer to l
Yep that was done to pass the XT tests for a release. Joe can you
look at those returns again?
That advice from perlcritic needs to be taken with a large grain of
salt.
In the past I have been bitten by this several times. It is generally
safer to leave 'return undef' unless one carefully ana
Yep that was done to pass the XT tests for a release. Joe can you
look at those returns again?
That advice from perlcritic needs to be taken with a large grain of
salt.
In the past I have been bitten by this several times. It is generally
safer to leave 'return undef' unless one carefully ana
Yep that was done to pass the XT tests for a release. Joe can you look at
those returns again?
Regards,
KAM
On January 14, 2015 1:35:20 PM EST, Mark Martinec
wrote:
>2015-01-14 18:06, je Alex Regan napisal
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm using amavisd-new-2.9.1 and perl-5.18.4 on fedora20 with the svn
>> sp
2015-01-14 18:06, je Alex Regan napisal
Hi,
I'm using amavisd-new-2.9.1 and perl-5.18.4 on fedora20 with the svn
spamassassin snapshot from today, and receive the following message:
Jan 14 11:59:21 mail01 amavis[19431]: (19431-18) _WARN: Use of
uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string
Hi,
I'm using amavisd-new-2.9.1 and perl-5.18.4 on fedora20 with the svn
spamassassin snapshot from today, and receive the following message:
Jan 14 11:59:21 mail01 amavis[19431]: (19431-18) _WARN: Use of
uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mail
11 matches
Mail list logo