I want the failure reports for older versions of Perl, back through 5.6.x. A distribution can specify a minimum Perl version in its META information. To me it makes sense that reports be issued for any Perl from current, back through whatever minimum version is specified with the exception of releases from retired development tracks.
Andreas mentioned that the goal of the smoke testing is to find bugs. Certainly the failure to support an older Perl that is within the range bounded by the minimum version specified in the distribution *is* a bug. Additionally, if I've got email notification turned on, and found that FAILs were being issued on an older Perl without my getting an email, I'd say that the notification tool's effectiveness is broken. Of course all this is with respect to older production-track Perls, not older development-tracks. I agree that it's not useful for retired development track Perl's to be used in smoke testing modules. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:07 AM, MPR <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Andreas Koenig > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ricardo Signes <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Can we all agree that there's no reason at this date to be smoking with >>> 5.13 or >>> 5.15? >> >> One might argue the ultimate goal of cpantesters is to find bugs. I'd >> say yes, but the bugs should be relevant. Bugs in very old and >> irrelevant combinations are *usually* noise that makes useful work >> harder for everybody involved. > > You say "usually". Is there a case where it might be useful to test > and send reports against an old version? > > As an alternative, would it be better to have cpantesters.org not > email the authors when a test is run against old versions of Perl? > That way each tester won't have to maintain an entry in their > distroprefs. We can exclude in a central location. -- David Oswald [email protected]
