On Dec 11, 2007, at 12:27 AM, Edwardson, Tony wrote:
Anyone written any CPAN modules for which the testing coverage needs
to be
improved ?
Sure - one that particularly bothers me is Apache2::AuthCookieDBI -
back when I took over maintenance of that module I didn't know how to
test it, b
* chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-15 19:10]:
> thus every tarball of every distribution should contain
> everything necessary to take over maintainership of a module.
It is a reasonable position, really, so long as you don’t stretch
it to absurd lengths. If there is something *unusual* invo
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:49:32 -0800, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> Asking the wrong question. None of our testsuites is there to protect
>> against spoof or attacks. That's simply not the goal. Same thing for
>> 00-signature.t
> We would seem to be agreeing. If
The uploaded file
TAP-Harness-Archive-0.03.tar.gz
has entered CPAN as
file: $CPAN/authors/id/W/WO/WONKO/TAP-Harness-Archive-0.03.tar.gz
size: 5995 bytes
md5: 5a92a2ae5b43469229a68146703d
The biggest change in this release is the removal of Archive::Builder and
Archive::Extract as
On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:34:37 Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Bt skipped tests don't get run so it's effectively deleted, except a
> permanently skipped test sits around cluttering things up. Smells like
> commenting out code that maybe someday you might want to use again in the
> future.
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Edwardson, Tony wrote:
Anyone written any CPAN modules for which the testing coverage needs to be
improved ?
Oh, yes.
Want someone else to sort this out for you ?
Yes.
Milton Keynes PM want to start working together to contribute to the Perl
development effort and a
On 15 Dec 2007, at 02:05, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-10T11:52:33]
On 10 Dec 2007, at 16:49, Ovid wrote:
Seems Ricardo Signes likes this idea, too:
http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/35076
Who? :)
:'(
I like this idea so much that if you point me a
Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:49:32 -0800, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL
>> PROTECTED]> said:
> > We would seem to be agreeing. If the goal of the test suite is not to
> protect
> > against spoofing, and if it doesn't accomplish that anyway, why put a
> > signature
