On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:17:06AM -0700, Bob Goolsby (bogoolsb) wrote:
> Actually, that is an argument for running two sets of tests, one vanilla,
> the other Tainted.
>
> And that raises the question "Who's bug is it?" if something passes the
> test package under normal conditions, but fails un
At 04:39 PM 10/21/2003 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 12:34:44PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> Anyway, my taint mode experience has been that random things break in very
> weird ways when using it.
All the more reason to test with it on. :)
--
Michael G Schwern[EMAIL
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:35:49AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:01:26AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> > I don't have time in the short term to work on the (albeit fairly
> > trivial) change to Storable. If someone can do that and get a new
> > release out then I'll look
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:01:26AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> I don't have time in the short term to work on the (albeit fairly
> trivial) change to Storable. If someone can do that and get a new
> release out then I'll look deeper into the performance issues then.
In reading this thread over the
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:01:20PM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> --- Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'll look into SQLite.
> >
> > I'd caution against rushing in any particular direction without some
> > profiling information to back it up.
> >
> > Having said that, I'd strongly recommend swit
Andrew Savige wrote in perl-qa :
>
> Given the differences in behaviour with taint mode, it seems to me
> that for a "taint mode test" (i.e. one with -wT in its first line)
> Test::Harness should run the test twice -- once with taint mode and
> once without. Though I suppose there might be a case
