# from Andreas J. Koenig
# on Monday 08 September 2008 15:16:
>Since yesterday I have downloaded and analysed ~56000 testreports from
>cpantesters and found ~135 distros that have been tested by both MB
>0.2808 and 0.2808_03. There is only one result (Test-Group-0.12) that
>looks bad but it turns out to be due to broken Test::More 0.81_01. All
>others suggest that _03 is doing well.
Umm... okay.
1. I see a lot of m/0.2808_03 +FAIL/ in there. Did you chase-down
several of those? Are you saying that having "some fail" on 0.2808
implies that "some fail" on 0.2808_03 means no regression, or did you
manage to somehow correlate the 0.2808_03 fails to the same machines
sending 0.2808 fails?
2. Where are these reports coming from? Again, the subject of false
fails: I would hate for testers to be pummelling other authors with
alpha M::B errors while the M::B maintainers are left blissfully
ignorant.
But those are just observations on the past. I think we're probably
ready to ship.
Thanks,
Eric
--
"It works better if you plug it in!"
--Sattinger's Law
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
