Re: The price of synching STDOUT and STDERR

On Wednesday 14 March 2007 00:00, Michael G Schwern wrote: > chromatic wrote: > > If only there were a way, perhaps in Test::Builder, to supply > > diag()nostic information to the TAP output stream. > Diagnostics (comments) in the TAP stream should not be displayed. diag() > does not go to the

Re: The price of synching STDOUT and STDERR

chromatic wrote: > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 23:15, Michael G Schwern wrote: > >> The simplest solution, and one which unblocks Test::Harness 3.0 because >> TAP::Parser breaks compatibility in its current state, is to remove the >> syncing feature. > > If only there were a way, perhaps in Test::Bu

Re: The price of synching STDOUT and STDERR

On Tuesday 13 March 2007 23:15, Michael G Schwern wrote: > The simplest solution, and one which unblocks Test::Harness 3.0 because > TAP::Parser breaks compatibility in its current state, is to remove the > syncing feature. If only there were a way, perhaps in Test::Builder, to supply diag()nosti

The price of synching STDOUT and STDERR

Those who don't follow TAP::Parser closely might now know about the issue that's currently being struggled with. It has to do with how TAP::Parser guarantees that STDOUT and STDERR will be in sync, something Test::Harness does not guarantee. Test::Harness only captures STDOUT from a test script.

[ANNOUNCE] Test::More/Simple/Builder 0.68

0.68 Tue Mar 13 17:27:26 PDT 2007 Bug fixes * If your code has a $SIG{__DIE__} handler in some cases functions like use_ok(), require_ok(), can_ok() and isa_ok() could trigger that handler. [rt.cpan.org 23509] - Minor improvement to TB's filehandle detection in the case of

Test::Run 0.0105

Hi all! Up on the hills of the release of TAP::Parser 0.51, I released a new version of Test::Run that works against it: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Run/ The Changes file reads: < 0.0105Mon Mar 12 23:46:34 IST 2007 * Converted from TAPx::Parser 0.3x to TAP::Parser 0.51

Re: Worrying about future proofing TAP is a little premature

On 3/13/07, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote: > Hmmm I sent Andy a patch to correct some typos in TAP.pm (the > TAP spec) > and received no reply. Here is the message for your inspection. Dude, two days in patch land is teeny. Applied,

Re: Worrying about future proofing TAP is a little premature

On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote: Hmmm I sent Andy a patch to correct some typos in TAP.pm (the TAP spec) and received no reply. Here is the message for your inspection. Dude, two days in patch land is teeny. Applied, thank you. xoa -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] =

Re: Worrying about future proofing TAP is a little premature

On 13 Mar 2007, at 07:39, Shlomi Fish wrote: Point is, its a little premature to worry about future proofing TAP against versioning mistakes when we're not producing new versions! I said last week that I'm worried about how much time has been spend talking about TAP extensions and so little

Re: TAP historical versions

Sam Vilain wrote: > I just gave the cg- commands initially because I didn't want to write > this git-core equivalent in public: > mkdir perl > cd perl > git-init > git-remote add catalyst git://git.catalyst.net.nz/perl.git > git-config remote.catalyst.fetch \ > '+refs/heads/restorica