When are we gonna put 2.99x up?
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
# from Andy Lester
# on Sunday 02 September 2007 08:53 pm:
>When are we gonna put 2.99x up?
I dunno. Are we waiting on t/compat/010-failure.t to be done? Seems to
work now.
And TH_TODO still has these (non-Wishlist) bugs listed as open.
- [ ] 8767[PATCH] Test::Harness fails to install wh
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> # from Andy Lester
> # on Sunday 02 September 2007 08:53 pm:
>
>> When are we gonna put 2.99x up?
>
> I dunno. Are we waiting on t/compat/010-failure.t to be done? Seems to
> work now.
>
> And TH_TODO still has these (non-Wishlist) bugs listed as open.
>
> - [ ] 8767
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Monday 03 September 2007 12:30 am:
>Are these existing bugs in Test::Harness? If so then you're at "no
> worse then what's already there" status and should make a release.
Probably.
>Alphas: Release early, release often. The whole point is to get
> people to bang
2007 10:16 AM
To: perl-qa@perl.org
Subject: Re: Test::Harness 2.99 again
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Monday 03 September 2007 12:30 am:
>Are these existing bugs in Test::Harness? If so then you're at "no
>worse then what's already there" status and should make a re
On 9/3/07, Gergely Brautigam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry as a beginner on this list.. Can I ask in what these modules are
> written? These modules are in Perl aren't they? Are there any written in c++?
> Like Win32 modules?
Why not look at their source code?
You can find the modules a
: Re: Test::Harness 2.99 again
On 9/3/07, Gergely Brautigam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry as a beginner on this list.. Can I ask in what these modules
are written? These modules are in Perl aren't they? Are there any
written in c++? Like Win32 modules?
Why not look a
Gergely Brautigam wrote:
> I'm sorry as a beginner on this list.. Can I ask in what these modules are
> written? These modules are in Perl aren't they? Are there any written in c++?
> Like Win32 modules?
Yes, they're written in Perl. Yes, it will run on Windows.
The nice part about TAP::Parser
--- Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Are these existing bugs in Test::Harness? If so then you're at "no
> > worse then what's already there" status and should make a release.
>
> Probably.
Agreed.
> >Alphas: Release early, release often. The whole point is to get
> > people to ban
Ovid wrote:
> Andy (Armstrong), aside from the fact that we now know that it fails
> miserably on VMS, do you know of any show stoppers or potential
> embarrassments?
>
> (The only reason I mention "potential embarrassments" is that CPANPLUS
> and Module::Build have left such a bad taste in many p
--- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How
> > ironic. It's a silly concern, I know :)
>
> Wringing your hands
> over perception issues defeats the point.
Did you see the bit where I wrote "It's a silly concern"? I *know*
this.
> And folks don't beat on CPANPLUS and Module::Build
On 3 Sep 2007, at 09:49, Ovid wrote:
Andy (Armstrong), aside from the fact that we now know that it fails
miserably on VMS, do you know of any show stoppers or potential
embarrassments?
I'm just trying to reproduce a problem I had at YAPC. I installed POE
via cpan with T::H 2.99 installed and
Ovid wrote:
> --- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> How
>>> ironic. It's a silly concern, I know :)
>> Wringing your hands
>> over perception issues defeats the point.
>
> Did you see the bit where I wrote "It's a silly concern"? I *know*
> this.
I know. You just need an ass k
On 3 Sep 2007, at 10:23, Andy Armstrong wrote:
I'm just trying to reproduce a problem I had at YAPC. I installed POE
via cpan with T::H 2.99 installed and although the tests all seemed
to have passed it tried to send a failure mail via CPAN::Reporter.
Assuming I can either fix that quickly or it
On 3 Sep 2007, at 10:47, Andy Armstrong wrote:
We do seem to have a problem. This is valid, right?
1..0 # most of these should move into other test files
OK - I see that it's not valid without SKIP after the # - but I guess
its presence in POE's tests means that TH 2.64 doesn't choke on it.
On 3 Sep 2007, at 10:55, Andy Armstrong wrote:
OK - I see that it's not valid without SKIP after the # - but I
guess its presence in POE's tests means that TH 2.64 doesn't choke
on it. What to do?
What to do: I've fixed the POE tests and mailed Chris Williams. It's
not our problem.
Anyon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3 Sep 2007, at 20:19, Abe Timmerman wrote:
Andy (Armstrong), aside from the fact that we now know that it fails
miserably on VMS, do you know of any show stoppers or potential
embarrassments?
s!fails miserably!does not work at all!
Any platform
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
Last week was me spending way too much time programming with two hands
behind my back to get 5.5.3 compatibility, bundling Test::More,
creating IO::Capture, etc.
In this package's POD, it would probably be good to distinguish this
package from the IO::Capture distribu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ovid wrote:
>
> Andy (Armstrong), aside from the fact that we now know that it fails
> miserably on VMS, do you know of any show stoppers or potential
> embarrassments?
s!fails miserably!does not work at all!
Any platform without $Config{d_fork} wi
19 matches
Mail list logo
