# from Carl Mäsak
# on Sunday 14 September 2008 07:18:
die Unrecognized directive: TMPL_$directive
if $directive ne 'VAR' | 'LOOP' | 'IF';
One is tempted to assume that this means the same as
$directive ne 'VAR' || $directive ne 'LOOP' || $directive ne 'IF',
but it doesn't.
Actually, it
Hi Larry,
# from Larry Wall
# on Thursday 11 September 2008 12:13:
So when you put something into a list context, some of the values
will be considered easy, and some will be considered hard.
The basic question is whether we treat those the same or differently
from a referential point of view.
# from Will Coleda
# on Monday 28 July 2008 07:31:
I presume Eric noticed this as he was working on his patch to enable a
parallel make test; Now that his patch is applied, fixing these tests
should have a higher priority; If two tests that are trying to
create/use the same directory run at the
# from Will Coleda
# on Monday 18 August 2008 12:11:
as far as i'm aware, with planet.parrotcode, the administrator picks
the feeds that are aggregated.
~jerry
Yes, I assumed you wanted server side aggregation.
What you're suggesting here sounds just like subscribe to as many
feeds as you
# from jerry gay
# on Tuesday 05 August 2008 14:13:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
Which reminds me: chromatic, what was your reasoning for major
releases being every three months, instead of four or six?
I agree we don't want to go much beyond six months for our
# from Moritz Lenz
# on Monday 28 July 2008 09:52:
That's not -just- with the patch, though, is it? I presume you've
set TEST_JOBS to be something other than '1' ...
I've set it to 2, and obeserve the errors below. With serial testing I
get a PASS (r29828).
Yes. TEST_JOBS=1 doesn't change
# from Moritz Lenz
# on Monday 28 July 2008 13:02:
With enough RAM everything is fair game ;-)
I ran it with $n == 20, and identified this list of files:
Yes. My reading of Parrot::Configure suggests that there's no tempdir
involved, which would need to be done per-process.
The alternative is
# from Andy Lester
# on Monday 05 May 2008:
This presupposes that the summaries are a good thing: anyone have
any feedback on this point?
Just wondering who the audience would be.
Lurkers (potential contributors.) Posting it on use.perl.org (and/or
various other feed sources) would reach
# from Andy Lester
# on Monday 05 May 2008:
But do those lurkers actually exist?
I exist (or at least, I operate under the assumption that I exist.)
that the people who would be interested in a summary are already on
the list.
Indeed I am on the list. But, I usually don't read anything with
just not
noticing it?
Did your local perl mongers list get my call for proposals mail?
http://use.perl.org/~Eric+Wilhelm/journal/35953
Do *you* know any students who would be good candidates?
Am I just being impatient? I'm curious whether there is a lack of
interest or a failure to adequately
# from chromatic
# on Saturday 01 March 2008 17:19:
Will Coleda and Dave Rolsky are currently performing similar features
for Parrot; either of them might be a good first choice.
If neither can do it, I will.
Excellent, thanks. Parrot seems to be nicely supplied with soc managers
now! Jerry
# from Nicholas Clark
# on Friday 29 February 2008 06:58:
There is no such thing as a p5p admin*.
No, it would need to be somebody on behalf of TPF, as google needs
somewhere to send the mentorship check.
Alternatively, a company or individual attached to a sufficiently large
perl-based
# from James Keenan via RT
# on Wednesday 27 February 2008 09:40:
The output of Test::Builder changed at 0.64_01, which falls in between
the 0.60 we had in the distro and the 0.72 which most (but not all) of
our developers are likely to be using now.
...
Two possible solutions: Either eliminate
# from Rafael Garcia-Suarez
# on Wednesday 09 January 2008 05:36:
Allison Randal wrote in perl.perl6.internals :
In the Python test suite, there's a single global location to
declare a list of test files that are expected to be skipped on a
particular platform. This has a much cleaner feel
# from Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT
# on Tuesday 27 November 2007 16:22:
after the release of Test::Harness 3.03 I'm wondering about the status
of the 'unified_testing' branch.
Test::Harness::Straps doesn't exist in the new Test::Harness, so trunk
would need to catchup with that issue regardless
# from James Keenan via RT
# on Friday 21 September 2007 13:44:
On Thu Sep 20 13:03:31 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://perlsix.org/svn/parrot/view/branches/unified_testing/BRANCH_TODO
...
5) Add processing of the output of Configure --test.
When I began working on writing tests for the
# from Andy Armstrong
# on Monday 10 September 2007 11:13 am:
On 10 Sep 2007, at 19:12, Andy Armstrong wrote:
What are the steps a parrot-n00b would take to be able to reproduce
your results?
svn co https://svn.perl.org/parrot/trunk parrot
perl Configure.pl
make
make test
If your
# from Parrot via RT
# on Tuesday 04 September 2007 01:30 am:
With TAP::Parser, the attached patch and Parrot/TAP/Harness.pm in the
current directory[1], the tests can be run as:
runtests --harness Parrot::TAP::Harness $(perl t/harness --files)
The runtests code has been refactored into
# from Gabor Szabo
# on Saturday 01 September 2007 01:35 am:
Regarding Parrot, I think there was some discussion of moving it to
use TAP::Harness and to use Smolder to collect the TAP based results.
Indeed.
We determined that the main task is refactoring all of the t/harness
files. It looks
# from Will Coleda via RT
# on Friday 03 August 2007 01:40 pm:
Seems like a pretty straightforward patch, but isn't the L syntax
used currently proper?
The L doesn't support named http:// links.
from perlpod:
'
Lscheme:...
Links to an absolute URL. For example, Lhttp://www.perl.org/. But
# from Andy Lester
# on Wednesday 27 June 2007 10:09 pm:
Modified since when?
Create a .critictest file when it succeeds and use that timestamp?
# from chromatic
# on Wednesday 27 June 2007 11:10 pm:
What if we have the Perl::Critic checks as Subversion commit hooks?
Could email p6i with the
# from Paul Cochrane
# on Thursday 31 May 2007 01:42 pm:
It is possible to get anonymous svn access to the pugs
source, but svn won't allow you to check out source from a different
repository into another repository's path
Maybe I'm missing something, but what I've done in similar situations
22 matches
Mail list logo
