From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:42:18 -0500
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 05:59:38PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > >>>Modified since when?
>
> Since the last time the user ran Configure.
> (For the default test run)
>
> I think tha
From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:42:18 -0500
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 05:59:38PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > >>>Modified since when?
>
> Since the last time the user ran Configure.
> (For the default test run)
>
> I think tha
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 05:59:38PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > >>>Modified since when?
>
> Since the last time the user ran Configure.
> (For the default test run)
>
> I think that this will produce minimal false positives and false negatives,
> for identifying which files have been locally
> >>>Modified since when?
Since the last time the user ran Configure.
(For the default test run)
I think that this will produce minimal false positives and false negatives,
for identifying which files have been locally edited.
Nicholas Clark
Andy Lester wrote:
Modified since when?
It'd have to be against the last update from svn of the file itself.
I'm not sure I like the idea of relying on a given VCS. I know Parrot's
hosted in Subversion, but what about the Git folks?
Perhaps a better approach is to squirrel away an MD5 of
# 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
chromatic schrieb:
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 13:22:22 Andy Lester wrote:
The Perl::Critic testing in t/codingstd/perlcritic.t needs to be
optional. The existence of Perl::Critic on a machine doesn't mean
that it's appropriate to run Perl::Critic on the Parrot code.
I
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:52:49PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 June 2007 22:38:17 Andy Lester wrote:
>
> > It'd have to be against the last update from svn of the file itself.
>
> Yes.
...just to toss some random brainstorms into the mix here...
To avoid svn-specific behavior, is
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 23:00:49 Andy Lester wrote:
> What if we have the Perl::Critic checks as Subversion commit hooks?
> Could email p6i with the results, too. That's what we do at work,
> and it's annoying, but it's there and it's pretty in-your-face.
If it doesn't hose svk push, where the
On Jun 28, 2007, at 12:52 AM, chromatic wrote:
Heck, you didn't
even *compile* before one of your checkins yesterday.
And really, this speaks even more about where the check should be.
What if we have the Perl::Critic checks as Subversion commit hooks?
Could email p6i with the results, to
On Jun 28, 2007, at 12:52 AM, chromatic wrote:
Heck, you didn't
even *compile* before one of your checkins yesterday.
Yeah, I did. I just had modified something else on a wild tear,
forgot to revert it, and did a commit hours later. Sorry about that.
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 22:38:17 Andy Lester wrote:
> It'd have to be against the last update from svn of the file itself.
Yes.
> I'm not sure I like the idea of relying on a given VCS. I know
> Parrot's hosted in Subversion, but what about the Git folks?
As soon as they start reporting fail
Modified since when?
Modified since the most recent checkout, of course. Check svn or
svk status.
Run these time-consuming analysis tests on only the modified files.
It'd have to be against the last update from svn of the file itself.
I'm not sure I like the idea of relying on a given V
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 22:09:55 Andy Lester wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:50 PM, chromatic wrote:
> > I'd like to see an option to run it only on *modified* files.
> Modified since when?
Modified since the most recent checkout, of course. Check svn or svk status.
Run these time-consumin
On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:50 PM, chromatic wrote:
I'd like to see an option to run it only on *modified* files.
Modified since when?
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 13:22:22 Andy Lester wrote:
> The Perl::Critic testing in t/codingstd/perlcritic.t needs to be
> optional. The existence of Perl::Critic on a machine doesn't mean
> that it's appropriate to run Perl::Critic on the Parrot code.
I'd like to see
Andy Lester wrote:
Maybe it's just my system that's being butt slow on it. Anyone else
getting times like this?
--
On my Linux Virtual Machine:
[li11-226:parrot] 503 $ time perl t/codingstd/perlcritic.t
# Perl::Critic::Bangs not installed: not testing for TODO items in code
1..9
ok 1 - Co
On Jun 27, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Andy Lester wrote:
The Perl::Critic testing in t/codingstd/perlcritic.t needs to be
optional. The existence of Perl::Critic on a machine doesn't mean
that it's appropriate to run Perl::Critic on the Parrot code.
Following up, it takes almost 11 un
The Perl::Critic testing in t/codingstd/perlcritic.t needs to be
optional. The existence of Perl::Critic on a machine doesn't mean
that it's appropriate to run Perl::Critic on the Parrot code.
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
19 matches
Mail list logo
