On Saturday 02 June 2007 03:33:27 Nathan S. Haigh wrote:
> On my return from holiday, who am I best sending my changes to?
The RT queue for Test::Kwalitee please, where I won't lose them.
-- c
On 2 Jun 2007, at 11:33, Nathan S. Haigh wrote:
On my return from holiday, who am I best sending my changes to?
You could certainly send them to me. Maybe put them on rt.cpan.org too?
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
Quoting brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathan S.
> Haigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A suggestion was to have different levels of
> > "strictness" in Test::Kwalitee and have different sets of metrics being
> > tested by
> > default at each of those levels
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, chromatic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 01 June 2007 10:47:00 Andy Armstrong wrote:
>
> > You could send them to me if you fancy? I'm guessing chromatic's
> > pretty busy.
>
> I lost most of my outstanding patches a couple of weeks ago too, and only
> jus
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathan S.
Haigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A suggestion was to have different levels of
> "strictness" in Test::Kwalitee and have different sets of metrics being
> tested by
> default at each of those levels. However, I didn´t get into this and simply
> hard-code
* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-02 03:40]:
> I know it's not as cute as the current interface - but cute can
> be surprising and I don't think a surprising interface is
> necessarily a good thing :)
Agreed. It just depended on what you preferred; in case of a
method per metric, gene
On 2 Jun 2007, at 01:25, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-01 16:25]:
I could
* generate the methods dynamically based on the Kwalitee
modules that are installed
* generate only the current methods and add a new method
test_against() (or whatever) that prov
* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-01 16:25]:
> I could
>
> * generate the methods dynamically based on the Kwalitee
> modules that are installed
>
> * generate only the current methods and add a new method
> test_against() (or whatever) that provides access to any
> named Kwalit
On Friday 01 June 2007 10:47:00 Andy Armstrong wrote:
> You could send them to me if you fancy? I'm guessing chromatic's
> pretty busy.
I lost most of my outstanding patches a couple of weeks ago too, and only just
noticed.
-- c
Hi!
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:23:14PM +0100, Andy Armstrong wrote:
> Test::Kwalitee currently exposes the known test types as methods. I can
> make it delve into Module::CPANTS::Analyse to find the tests that are
> actually available - but then what to do about the methods?
Sorry, not a lot of
Quoting brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 5/31/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 31 May 2007, at 21:42, brian d foy wrote:
> > > I've just been running cpants_lint.pl before I upload anything. If it
> > > doesn't say "perfect", that fails. :)
> >
> > Yes, damn you :)
> >
> >
On 1 Jun 2007, at 18:41, Nathan S. Haigh wrote:
I recently made some simple changes to Test::Kwalitee so that it
would test all the metrics provided by Module::CPANTS::Analyse.
However, Chromitic
hasn´t yet updated CPAN with these changes. I´m on holiday at the
moment so I won´t be even more
Quoting Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 1 Jun 2007, at 06:38, chromatic wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 31 May 2007 19:08:27 Andy Armstrong wrote:
> >> On 1 Jun 2007, at 02:09, brian d foy wrote:
> >>> I'll have some time next week if Andy doesn't beat me too it.
> >>
> >> I'm having a rummage
On 1 Jun 2007, at 06:38, chromatic wrote:
On Thursday 31 May 2007 19:08:27 Andy Armstrong wrote:
On 1 Jun 2007, at 02:09, brian d foy wrote:
I'll have some time next week if Andy doesn't beat me too it.
I'm having a rummage around now :)
chromatic: do you have a .perltidyrc you could send m
On Thursday 31 May 2007 19:08:27 Andy Armstrong wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2007, at 02:09, brian d foy wrote:
> > I'll have some time next week if Andy doesn't beat me too it.
>
> I'm having a rummage around now :)
>
> chromatic: do you have a .perltidyrc you could send me? My muscle
> memory keeps reaching
On 1 Jun 2007, at 02:09, brian d foy wrote:
I'll have some time next week if Andy doesn't beat me too it.
I'm having a rummage around now :)
chromatic: do you have a .perltidyrc you could send me? My muscle
memory keeps reaching for the perltidy hot key that would convert
your code to Andy
On 5/31/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 31 May 2007, at 21:42, brian d foy wrote:
> I've just been running cpants_lint.pl before I upload anything. If it
> doesn't say "perfect", that fails. :)
Yes, damn you :)
I'll volunteer for a bit of poking of Test::Kwalitee if it doesn't
On 31 May 2007, at 21:42, brian d foy wrote:
I've just been running cpants_lint.pl before I upload anything. If it
doesn't say "perfect", that fails. :)
Yes, damn you :)
I'll volunteer for a bit of poking of Test::Kwalitee if it doesn't
need too much.
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, chromatic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 May 2007 14:54:27 demerphq wrote:
>
> > Er, so you want a metric to tell people about how their rejec
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 14:54:27 demerphq wrote:
> Er, so you want a metric to tell people about how their rejected
> upload to PAUSE isnt going to work right?
>
> That doesnt sound like a very useful metric. If PAUSE doesnt index it
> then you shouldnt test it as its already failed the most impo
On 5/29/07, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
demerphq wrote:
> On 5/26/07, Andreas J. Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> AFAIK it is not Archive::Tar either. I have not found out which
>> compression software packages do it right and which do it wrong. I
>> have communicated with sev
demerphq wrote:
On 5/26/07, Andreas J. Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
AFAIK it is not Archive::Tar either. I have not found out which
compression software packages do it right and which do it wrong. I
have communicated with several authors about it but being Windows
users, they do not know it
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 20:06:18 +0200, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 5/26/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 26 May 2007, at 18:45, demerphq wrote:
>> > Maybe ill just upload my files in zip format from now on only, then
>> > its not my problem anymore right? Wou
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 20:47:18 +0200, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 5/26/07, Andreas J. Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 26 May 2007 20:06:18 +0200, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On 5/26/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On 26 M
* Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-26 19:50]:
> One of the very few reasons I maintain a Windows box here and
> endure the pain (for me - subjective I know) that goes with it
> is so I can test my modules against Win32.
So do I. And yeah, I find it painful too. But it’s not open for
deb
On 5/26/07, Andreas J. Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 20:06:18 +0200, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 5/26/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 26 May 2007, at 18:45, demerphq wrote:
>> > Maybe ill just upload my files in zip format from no
# from demerphq
# on Saturday 26 May 2007 10:45 am:
>> Sorry, but it is *the _compression_ software's* bug.
>
>Fine, then what do i do about it? File a bug with Archive::Tar
>(maintained by a non windows programmer)?
This should be properly handled by the dist action of any sufficiently
modern M
On 26 May 2007, at 19:06, demerphq wrote:
I was out of line in how i put things. I apologise.
Thanks Yves. I /still/ think it's pretty cool that basically we're
all friends :)
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
On 26 May 2007, at 19:03, Gabor Szabo wrote:
did you all wake up on the wrong side ?
Could you please calm down?
I can confirm that I'm spectacularly calm :)
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
On 5/26/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 26 May 2007, at 18:45, demerphq wrote:
> Maybe ill just upload my files in zip format from now on only, then
> its not my problem anymore right? Would that be better?
That would be fine.
Fine then. The fact that ExtUtils make dist automa
On 5/26/07, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 26 May 2007, at 18:45, demerphq wrote:
> Maybe ill just upload my files in zip format from now on only, then
> its not my problem anymore right? Would that be better?
That would be fine.
You know - you've kind of tickled a raw nerve here.
On 26 May 2007, at 18:45, demerphq wrote:
Maybe ill just upload my files in zip format from now on only, then
its not my problem anymore right? Would that be better?
That would be fine.
You know - you've kind of tickled a raw nerve here.
One of the very few reasons I maintain a Windows box he
On 5/26/07, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-26 19:20]:
> BTW, id say that if this is an issue for Unix users then they
> should file a bug with the people that wrote their
> decompression software and/or installer software.
It's the decompression s
* demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-26 19:20]:
> BTW, id say that if this is an issue for Unix users then they
> should file a bug with the people that wrote their
> decompression software and/or installer software.
It’s the decompression software’s fault that it correctly
preserves the data i
On 26 May 2007, at 18:16, demerphq wrote:
I dont see it as being my problem as a Win32 developer at all. Im
sympathetic to the annoyance it causes but to me its like opening a
book written in a language you dont read and complaining that it isnt
written in one you do. I mean if Win32 doesnt even
On 5/26/07, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-26 17:35]:
> Can you explain this please? Why would the lack of a set x bit
> on a directory prevent you from doing
>
> perl Makefile.PL
> make
> make test
Yes.
Im assuming this means "Yes it prevent
* demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-26 17:35]:
> Can you explain this please? Why would the lack of a set x bit
> on a directory prevent you from doing
>
> perl Makefile.PL
> make
> make test
Yes.
> Is this simply so you dont have to type 'perl'?
No.
The x bit on a directory determines
On 5/26/07, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some modules' tarballs don't set the x bit on directories, which makes
it impossible for a non-root user to run Makefile.PL or the module's
tests. The usual cause is that the author suffers from Windows, and the
fix is to use '--mode 755' whe
* David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-26 16:45]:
> I think it would be a good idea for CPANTS to check that
> directories have the x bits set.
++
> This would either be a new metric
+=0
> or could be rolled into 'extracts_nicely'
++
> or could be combined with 'no_symlinks' and called
Some modules' tarballs don't set the x bit on directories, which makes
it impossible for a non-root user to run Makefile.PL or the module's
tests. The usual cause is that the author suffers from Windows, and the
fix is to use '--mode 755' when creating the tarball.
I think it would be a good
40 matches
Mail list logo
