* Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-01 05:25]:
David Golden wrote:
* Alternatives -- Eric Wilhelm suggests putting these tests in
at/ and running them with prove. Likewise, Module::Build and
ExtUtils::MakeMaker could have targets added that run tests in
an at/ directory as another way
* A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-08-03 09:08]:
I’d suggest `aut_t`.
Err, `auth_t`.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Salve J Nilsen wrote:
Bug #1: The module build output text is too verbose. (Hiding the detailed
output would be useful.)
It certainly is, especially when there's XS things being built. The
vast majority of the time all you're interested in is failures, no-one
cares that yet another
On 7/31/07, David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/31/07, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please explain to me, in detail sufficient for a three year old, precisely
how:
1) POD can possibly behave any differently on my machine versus anyone
else's
machine, being non-executed
# from Joshua ben Jore
# on Thursday 02 August 2007 07:13 am:
Just FYI, using valid pod like =head3 causes runtime failures during
build on older versions of Pod::Whatever that's used during the
module installation by EU::MM.
Good point.
And still, this is something which *can* be checked at
Thanks for reading through my wall of text, Adam. :)
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Salve J. Nilsen wrote:
Let's say Joe Sysadmin wants to install the author's (a.k.a. your)
module Useful::Example, and during the test-phase one of the POD tests
fail.
Joe Sysadmin doesn't use modules, lets try the
# from Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
# on Tuesday 31 July 2007 10:19 pm:
On Tue, July 31, 2007 9:56 pm, chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 20:25:15 Salve J. Nilsen wrote:
Turning off syntax checking of your POD is comparable to not
turning on warnings in your code. Now would you publish code
On Jul 31, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
* POD tests should be run by the user.
* POD tests should not be run by the user.
Anything productive come out of it?
I don't care which people choose, as long as it's done on CentOS
Linux with vim, uses spaces instead of tabs, and
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Long threads scare me and, I'm sure, other people. Can people sum up what
useful things have been said in that long thread? Skimming it so far it seems
to be:
* POD tests should be run by the user.
* POD tests should not be run by the user.
Anything productive come
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 10:44:07 Salve J Nilsen wrote:
In fact, this argument is ludicrus, and here's why:
1. We're playing the Open Source Development game here, of which the prime
directive is Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow. By denying end-users to
partake in this game (by not giving them
chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 12:35:06 David Golden wrote:
On 7/31/07, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) POD can possibly behave any differently on my machine versus anyone
else's machine, being non-executed text and not executed code
What version of Pod::Simple do you
On 7/31/07, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not a functional failure; it has nothing to do with whether the *code*
will behave correctly on a user's system.
That's not the question you posed. You asked why POD would behave
differently. Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
I
On Jul 31, 2007, at 3:43 PM, David Golden wrote:
* Module::Starter -- Andy wants these tests run by default and he
doesn't seem to be swayed; So people need to fork this and start
advocating for an alternative.
Or maybe it's just not that big a deal.
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:43:08PM -0400, David Golden wrote:
* CPANTS -- eliminating or penalizing Kwalitee for pod/pod-coverage
tests would seem to be up to Thomas Klausner; I don't think I've seen
him weigh in on this recently. So people need to lobby him or fork
the project.
He's
Andy Lester wrote:
On Jul 31, 2007, at 3:43 PM, David Golden wrote:
* Module::Starter -- Andy wants these tests run by default and he
doesn't seem to be swayed; So people need to fork this and start
advocating for an alternative.
Or maybe it's just not that big a deal.
Once again,
In fact, when a topic degrades to this level on the list go yell about it on
IRC. Email is the worst possible form of communication for this, its
optimized for big, detached speeches. At least IRC is more like a real time
conversation and the five people arguing won't scare off the hundred other
David Golden wrote:
* Module::Starter -- Andy wants these tests run by default and he
doesn't seem to be swayed; So people need to fork this and start
advocating for an alternative. Ditto other module generators. (And
mea culpa for my own.)
You don't need to fork Module::Starter. You
David Golden wrote:
* Alternatives -- Eric Wilhelm suggests putting these tests in at/ and
running them with prove. Likewise, Module::Build and
ExtUtils::MakeMaker could have targets added that run tests in an
at/ directory as another way to encourage the practice. (Module
authors who want
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 20:25:15 Salve J. Nilsen wrote:
Turning off syntax checking of your POD is comparable to not turning on
warnings in your code. Now would you publish code developed without use
warnings;?
Now that's just silly.
I really have nothing more to say in this thread. Wow.
On Tue, July 31, 2007 9:56 pm, chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 20:25:15 Salve J. Nilsen wrote:
Turning off syntax checking of your POD is comparable to not turning on
warnings in your code. Now would you publish code developed without
use
warnings;?
Now that's just silly.
Is it?
20 matches
Mail list logo
