Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Golden wrote: >> The problem is that we want Sub::Uplevel to do what people expect if >> they have already taken a knife to CORE::caller for some stupid >> reason, since nothing in Perl stops them from doing so. >

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:51:02 +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> said: > * Andreas J. Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-09 11:25]: >> It's definitely the 'I broke CPAN' level. My smoker has 260 >> fails more than usually. > Due to this particular issue? I have not

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

David Golden wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Taking a knife to CORE::caller() and then calling someone else's functions >> and >> expecting them to work is not a good idea. > > The problem is that we want Sub::Uplevel to do what people expe

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:03:25 -0700, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > I've uploaded a new alpha to deal with this. It still breaks Sub::Uplevel. Sub::Uplevel has lots of dependencies. I won't smoke a Test-Simple that breaks Sub-Uplevel. Or if the fault is on Sub-Uplevel

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Taking a knife to CORE::caller() and then calling someone else's functions and > expecting them to work is not a good idea. The problem is that we want Sub::Uplevel to do what people expect if they have already taken a

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 09 September 2008 15:10:13 Michael G Schwern wrote: > >> The goal of the test seems to be to detect that a customized caller() >> routine is not blown away by Sub::Uplevel. A much safer way to do that is >> to have y

Re: Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

On Tuesday 09 September 2008 15:10:13 Michael G Schwern wrote: > The goal of the test seems to be to detect that a customized caller() > routine is not blown away by Sub::Uplevel.  A much safer way to do that is > to have your customized caller() just flick a file-scoped variable when it > gets ca

Sub::Uplevel vs Test::More

Andreas J. Koenig wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:03:25 -0700, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL >> PROTECTED]> said: > > > I've uploaded a new alpha to deal with this. > > It still breaks Sub::Uplevel. Sub::Uplevel has lots of dependencies. I > won't smoke a Test-Simple that breaks Sub-Uplev

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

Andreas J. Koenig wrote: >> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:00:54 +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL >> PROTECTED]> said: > > > * Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-09 08:15]: > >> I was surprised to get a few hundred results > > > Note that CodeSearch indexes tarballs, so there a

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

--- On Tue, 9/9/08, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Who's Bob Nimby? > > > > No one. 'Bob' is a generic name. Nimby refers > to "NIMBY" -- Not > > In My BackYard -- the selfish habit of people who shut > down > > needed works because they're personally > inconvenienced. > > OK

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

* Andreas J. Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-09 11:25]: > It's definitely the 'I broke CPAN' level. My smoker has 260 > fails more than usually. Due to this particular issue? Anyway, the biggest “I broke CPAN” event I remember involved failures cascading to some 15× as many distributions – lit

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-09 12:00]: > --- On Tue, 9/9/08, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Who's Bob Nimby? > > No one. 'Bob' is a generic name. Nimby refers to "NIMBY" -- Not > In My BackYard -- the selfish habit of people who shut down > needed works because they're pers

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

--- On Tue, 9/9/08, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Careful. You keep talking like that and Bob Nimby > will write a scathing email > > telling you that since he doesn't need it, neither > does anyone else. > > Well maybe I don't need Bob Nimby. > > Who's Bob Nimby? No one. '

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

Ovid wrote: > --- On Tue, 9/9/08, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> The nice thing about having a central package >> repository with >>> such a strong gravity as CPAN does is that it enables >> tandem >>> upgrades of dependent code when APIs change >> incompatibly. >> >> So jealou

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:00:54 +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> said: > * Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-09 08:15]: >> I was surprised to get a few hundred results > Note that CodeSearch indexes tarballs, so there are likely to be > a lot of dupes. B

Re: Module::Build 0.2809 release coming, should we test it?

> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:36:00 -0700, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > # from Andreas J. Koenig > # on Monday 08 September 2008 15:16: >> Since yesterday I have downloaded and analysed ~56000 testreports from >> cpantesters and found ~135 distros that have been tested by both MB

Re: Module::Build 0.2809 release coming, should we test it?

> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:48:37 -0700, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > http://scratchcomputing.com/tmp/generated_by.module_build.list Since yesterday I have downloaded and analysed ~56000 testreports from cpantesters and found ~135 distros that have been tested by both MB 0.2808 an

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

--- On Tue, 9/9/08, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The nice thing about having a central package > repository with > > such a strong gravity as CPAN does is that it enables > tandem > > upgrades of dependent code when APIs change > incompatibly. > > So jealous of OS vendors for

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-09 08:35]: >> This reminds me of all of the regexes people write to match >> "proper" HTML: sometimes something simple is all you need :) > > As I wrote in response to Eric, I was actually trying to get as > near a comprehenive list

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-09 09:05]: >> “I broke CPAN” > > Btw, Michael, do you have a t-shirt that says that? Because if > not, we really need to make you one. :-) Hehe, no, but that would be awesome! :) Maybe that should be the next Best Pr

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

* Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-09 09:05]: > “I broke CPAN” Btw, Michael, do you have a t-shirt that says that? Because if not, we really need to make you one. :-) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: use Test::More no_plan => $plan;

* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-09 08:15]: > I was surprised to get a few hundred results Note that CodeSearch indexes tarballs, so there are likely to be a lot of dupes. But even so, a cautious estimate would still put that at at least several dozen unique hits, so it’s not quite