On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 06:49:15AM -0600 Chris Dolan wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2006, at 4:55 AM, Tassilo von Parseval wrote:
>
> >>Do you think this might work better, or could be implemented as, a
> >>seperate Test::Fork type module?
> >
> >It certainly could be don
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:22:25PM +1000 Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Tassilo von Parseval wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I was told that Test::More patches should now go to this list so here we
> >go.
> >
> >The attached patch serves as a draft for enabling test-script
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 11:27:15AM +0100 Fergal Daly wrote:
> That's why I said you prefix with a ".".
>
> This has the effect of making it not a number as far as TAP is
> concernted, instead it becomes part of the name.
>
> Of course it would be better to allow "."s in the number, that way you
>
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:47:54AM +0100 Fergal Daly wrote:
> A far simpler solution (that I've posted before recently) is to
> output test "numbers" like
>
> .1.1
> .1.2
> .1.3
> .2.1
> .2.2
> .1.4
>
> etc where the first number signifies the thread/process and the second
> is just an increasin
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 06:29:43PM +1000 Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Without saying you shouldn't be sending them here, but as an aside...
>
> Who told you to send patches to the list?
Andy Lester told Stas Bekman who told me.
> Is there a reason that the rt.cpan.org queue is no longer useful?
I don'
Hi,
I was told that Test::More patches should now go to this list so here we
go.
The attached patch serves as a draft for enabling test-scripts that fork
without the test-counter getting confused. It does so by using a
Storable imaged shared between the processes. The patch however does
need some
