On 3/1/07, Steve Pitchford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This seems a very pragmatic solution to a problem, however given recent
posts, it seems to be a solution in search of approval - is there a
meta.yml owner / committee / interest group - at least a mailing list?
Well, Ken Williams maintains
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:53:50 +0100
Jonas B. Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
time_ok( sub { sleep(1); }, 5, 'Passing test' );
time_ok( sub { sleep(10); }, 5, 'Non-passing test' );
...
So my question is: is this module already on CPAN, or something
similar (better), or should I
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-02-28T22:39:01]
Is there a de facto standard for custom extensions to META.yml? (I
didn't see one in the spec.) An example might be fields beginning
with a capital letter or X-foo style extensions. E.g.
Why not:
extensions:
CPAN::Reporter:
A. Pagaltzis writes:
* Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-01 21:45]:
Can't we just start using cc-author as a field, then if it takes off
get it blessed as part of the official spec?
Then how do you tell whether `bastract` is a typo or extension
field?
You can't. But equally you
David Golden writes:
In response to other questions about X-foo, I was mirroring the RFC
822 email spec
Yeah; that's why I'm so hostile to the idea! Mail headers have
X-Mailer: but User-Agent: without the X-; and X-Mailing-List: but
Posted-To: and List-Id: -- from a user's point of view it's
# from David Golden
# on Friday 02 March 2007 02:45 pm:
For the META.yml spec, should anything not expressly allowed be
forbidden?
If so, then any extension like this has to be explicitly added to the
spec. On the positive side, it doesn't leave ambiguity for tools that
work with META.yml.
* Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-02 22:55]:
A. Pagaltzis writes:
* Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-01 21:45]:
Can't we just start using cc-author as a field, then if it
takes off get it blessed as part of the official spec?
Then how do you tell whether `bastract` is a typo or
