On 24 Dec 2007, at 05:30, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Thinking on this a little more, there is the issue of folks like me
who share
a single CPAN configuration file across multiple Perl
installations. I don't
know how common that is to have a stable and devel perl running off
the same
CPAN con
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-24 06:10]:
> The "5.even as devel" period is very short. CPAN authors should
> be made aware of how their code works with release candidates.
> That's a period when problems are likely to be for real.
Agreed: it’s very unlikely there’ll be huge chan
On 24 Dec 2007, at 10:44, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-12-24 06:10]:
The "5.even as devel" period is very short. CPAN authors should
be made aware of how their code works with release candidates.
That's a period when problems are likely to be for real.
Agre
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> As for the social problem, the BSD testers could try to help out with whatever
> the problem is.
FWIW, I do, *if* the author gets in touch with me. It's not practical
for me to try to help solve all the problems I find, but if an author
cares enough to contact me, then
Chris Dolan wrote:
> Does anyone know how the false negative rates compare for cpan-tester
> smokers vs. CPAN::Reporter users? I've found the former to be
> enormously valuable for cross-platform testing (especially David
> Cantrell and Slaven Rezic), but I have seen very little feedback via the
David Golden wrote:
> There have also been numerous "missing library" failures -- which is
> actually a legitimate gap in how the toolchain handles external
> dependencies and thus how smokers handle them. Thankfully, Cantrell
> wrote Devel::CheckLib to try to make that easier, though it still
>
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> [1] It can be argued that bleadperl testers should probably not email authors
I'd argue that they should, as problems found testing against bleadperl
seem to end up being problems in the next stable release. Personally
I'd prefer to at least have the opportunity to fix
chromatic wrote:
> I just went through a sampling of fail reports for my stuff. There was one
> legitimate packaging bug, and a couple of legitimate errors due to updates to
> Perl. About 35% of the other reports are these.
I just went through a sampling of *recent* fail reports for your stuf
