Re: DBI development release ready to ship
2010/6/16 Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:10:38PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: Hi Tim, from my point of view, the current trunk of DBI is ready to be shipped as next development release. Not in MANIFEST: t/51dbm_file.t Not in MANIFEST: t/52dbm_complex.t Should they be in the MANIFEST? They should, my fault. I'll do it now. Because it should be uploaded together with the development release of SQL::Statement, we should synchronize our uploads. Please tell me more about this. Why synchronize? DBI has test-depends (and recommendation) for SQL::Statement 1.28 and S::S has test-depends on DBI 1.612. Some tests in DBI work only with SQL::Statement (and vice versa). Tim.
Re: DBI development release ready to ship
2010/6/16 Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:10:38PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: Hi Tim, from my point of view, the current trunk of DBI is ready to be shipped as next development release. Great. I really get blushed since you named me twice in Changes - but shouldn't Merijn get an entry, too? Jens
Re: DBI development release ready to ship
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 08:41:27AM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: 2010/6/16 Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:10:38PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: Hi Tim, from my point of view, the current trunk of DBI is ready to be shipped as next development release. Not in MANIFEST: t/51dbm_file.t Not in MANIFEST: t/52dbm_complex.t Should they be in the MANIFEST? They should, my fault. I'll do it now. Because it should be uploaded together with the development release of SQL::Statement, we should synchronize our uploads. Please tell me more about this. Why synchronize? DBI has test-depends (and recommendation) for SQL::Statement 1.28 and S::S has test-depends on DBI 1.612. I think the DBI shouldn't have test-depends for SQL::Statement. The recommendation is fine though. Some tests in DBI work only with SQL::Statement (and vice versa). Okay, but they're skipped if SQL::Statement isn't defined (right?) so the tests don't strictly *depend* on SQL::Statement. Tim.
Re: DBI development release ready to ship
2010/6/16 Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com: On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 08:41:27AM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: 2010/6/16 Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com: On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:10:38PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: Hi Tim, from my point of view, the current trunk of DBI is ready to be shipped as next development release. Not in MANIFEST: t/51dbm_file.t Not in MANIFEST: t/52dbm_complex.t Should they be in the MANIFEST? They should, my fault. I'll do it now. Because it should be uploaded together with the development release of SQL::Statement, we should synchronize our uploads. Please tell me more about this. Why synchronize? DBI has test-depends (and recommendation) for SQL::Statement 1.28 and S::S has test-depends on DBI 1.612. I think the DBI shouldn't have test-depends for SQL::Statement. The recommendation is fine though. It has a test-depends - but the tests are skipped if S::S is not available. My though was in the direction I want to have the feedback from CPAN testers regarding the new S::S. Some tests in DBI work only with SQL::Statement (and vice versa). Okay, but they're skipped if SQL::Statement isn't defined (right?) so the tests don't strictly *depend* on SQL::Statement. No, they're simply skipped (or fallback to DBI::SQL::Nano) without SQL::Statement. I want to see if there're more incompatibilities like that one from Birmingham.pm. Those are not discovered without SQL::Statement :) Can you upload a DBI-1.611_92 now (with 2 more tests and the fixed Changes)? Jens
