In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael G Schwern writes:
:On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:43:36AM +0100, Hugo wrote:
:> :This issue is big enough to warrent a seperate discussion/RFC.
:>
:> Agreed. When that comes, I'll argue that it is perfectly acceptable
:> to release a "stable (maintenance) Perl" with kn
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:51:46PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I do not believe that it would be a good idea to mix perl5 and perl6 on
> any of the lists. If something is useful to perl5 send it on to p5p.
It would be artificial to split the two. Most of QA will be
applicable to all of Perl.
I do not believe that it would be a good idea to mix perl5 and perl6 on
any of the lists. If something is useful to perl5 send it on to p5p.
Anything else just confuses the issues.
If you'd like a set of throw-away tests. That will be replaced with
the formal spec. (Which may of course be the re
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 04:51:18PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> In One Sentence
> ---
>
> All patches to perl must have an associated testing patch.
I appreciate the direction you're looking, but I do not support your
One Sentence. Many patches are patches to Configure, the
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:21:07AM +0100, Hugo wrote:
> First up, are all perl-qa messages going to bootstrap as well? If so,
> I don't need to be on both lists.
>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael G Schwern writes:
> :In One Sentence
> :---
> :
> :All patches to perl must have an ass
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:37:30AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It is currently an (apparent) no-no to add tests to perl that fail.
>
> I seem to recall that Ilya put in a way to add tests that are known to
> fail, and whose failures are ignored in normal installation mode, but
> I forget
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:43:36AM +0100, Hugo wrote:
> :This issue is big enough to warrent a seperate discussion/RFC.
>
> Agreed. When that comes, I'll argue that it is perfectly acceptable
> to release a "stable (maintenance) Perl" with known test failures.
That was actually a subtle hint tha
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael G Schwern writes:
:> It is currently an (apparent) no-no to add tests to perl that fail.
:> While I can understand the desire to avoid distressing end users
:> with fully anticipated test failures, I think we need a better
:> solution to this - when a problem is ide
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:21:07AM +0100, Hugo wrote:
> First up, are all perl-qa messages going to bootstrap as well? If so,
> I don't need to be on both lists.
No. I'm posting the initial few RFCs on bootstrap to get people's
attention. All discussion should go to perl-qa only. Sorry if I
di
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 08:51:18PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> I'd like to reject the philosophy. I'd prefer that the language define
> perl. I.e. not an implementation. Rather the spec.
>
> Shouldn't the tests be designed from the spec?
Spec? What spec? Perl has a spec?
At the moment, Pe
> It is currently an (apparent) no-no to add tests to perl that fail.
I seem to recall that Ilya put in a way to add tests that are known to
fail, and whose failures are ignored in normal installation mode, but
I forget offhand how it works.
First up, are all perl-qa messages going to bootstrap as well? If so,
I don't need to be on both lists.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael G Schwern writes:
:In One Sentence
:---
:
:All patches to perl must have an associated testing patch.
Can you explain more about how you'll test doc
I'd like to reject the philosophy. I'd prefer that the language define
perl. I.e. not an implementation. Rather the spec.
Shouldn't the tests be designed from the spec?
(Yes, it might depend if we can become machine independent (e.g. '%' or
NaN. Which is another forum.)
> "MGS" == Micha
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 11:58:43PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > Instead, every new feature added/changed and bug fixed (ie. every code
> > patch) must have an associated patch to the testing suite. No test, no
> > acceptance. Period.
>
> Even a patch that exists to fix an existing regression te
14 matches
Mail list logo
