On Wed Sep 17 05:30:18 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > 4. I will then open up a new RT of the [RFC] class. This ticket will
> > call for development of a specification of a way to visually display the
> > extent to which Parrot's tests cover the specification. I'll be quoting
> > from p
On Tue Sep 16 15:45:47 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 2. I will apply a refined version of the patch. It will delete inline
> comments referring to the deleted tickets. But I will leave to others
> dealing with reference to smartlinks under languages/.
Done, now that release has been cut.
On Tue Sep 16 15:45:47 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Okay, here's what I propose we do:
>
> 1. I will examine the 12 unresolved tickets to see if there are any
> which will not be automatically closable once my patch is applied.
>
Examination complete.
> 2. I will apply a refined versio
On Tue Sep 16 06:50:26 2008, particle wrote:
> >
> parrot needs a way for us to measure spec coverage in our test suite.
> i started the current smartlinks code as an experiment in using moose,
> and as a reaction to the mess of smartlink code that's in the pugs
> repo. however, i'm not married to
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 5:14 AM, James Keenan via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue Sep 16 00:08:29 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Monday 15 September 2008 20:06:11 James Keenan via RT wrote:
>>
>> > See patch attached. The patch eliminates smartlink-related code from
>> > Parrot, but d
On Sun Sep 14 12:17:51 2008, szbalint wrote:
> I've looked at the state of the Smart Link concept as applied for Parrot
> and it looks like there are some issues that would need to be addressed
> before progress can be made on some tickets and other tickets might not
> make sense.
>
> The format o
