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
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
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
kmcgr...@pccc.com 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
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
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
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
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 mark.martinec...@ijs.si
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
