On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 10:18:19PM -0500, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Anyone have any ideas on this blip?
http://handelframework.com/coverage/blib-lib-Handel-Base-pm.html
line #171
Lord knows, it doesn't really matter since that's the only piece left,
but I'm kinda of curious. This is
David Golden wrote:
I have to second this. There really shouldn't be separate conforms
to 1.0 and conforms to 1.2 metrics and so on. What happens as the
spec evolves? Unless the spec is broken, encouraging specific latest
spec compliant is just churn and Kwalitee breaks if there's ever a
On 11/6/06, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And realistically, Ken, Adam and I (maintainers of the major install tools)
really control most of the META.yml generation anyway. If we don't upgrade,
you don't upgrade.
Well, that's not entirely true for things like no_index or
Back in August I posted here about Crucible, a tool for kernel testing.
We've completed a new release, version 1.7, available here:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/crucible/crucible-1.7.tar.gz
I'm scheduled to be presenting this at the November PDX.pm Perl Monger's
meeting
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-06 05:40]:
I have to second this. There really shouldn't be separate
conforms to 1.0 and conforms to 1.2 metrics and so on.
What happens as the spec evolves? Unless the spec is broken,
encouraging specific latest spec compliant is just churn and
