On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Michael G Schwern wrote:
So, we seem to have drifted from the topic of test groups over to this
topic of future proofing against broken versions and TAP producer / parser
version negotiation. I have a simple solution for this.
If all we do is argue about TAP
On 13 Mar 2007, at 07:39, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Point is, its a little premature to worry about future proofing
TAP against
versioning mistakes when we're not producing new versions! I said
last
week that I'm worried about how much time has been spend talking
about TAP
extensions and so
On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Hmmm I sent Andy a patch to correct some typos in TAP.pm (the
TAP spec)
and received no reply. Here is the message for your inspection.
Dude, two days in patch land is teeny.
Applied, thank you.
xoa
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
On 3/13/07, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Hmmm I sent Andy a patch to correct some typos in TAP.pm (the
TAP spec)
and received no reply. Here is the message for your inspection.
Dude, two days in patch land is teeny.
Applied,
So, we seem to have drifted from the topic of test groups over to this topic
of future proofing against broken versions and TAP producer / parser version
negotiation. I have a simple solution for this.
If all we do is argue about TAP extensions and never actually produce one we
will never have
On 12 Mar 2007, at 23:49, Michael G Schwern wrote:
And nothing done to work on the TAP diagnostic
syntax, easily the most pressing new TAP feature.
I've been thinking about that today. I've got other stuff today
tomorrow and Wednesday but my plan was to get some code out by the
end of the
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Monday 12 March 2007 04:49 pm:
If all we do is argue about TAP extensions and never actually produce
one we will never have to worry about new versions!
That's a good plan. To implement it, we really need a committee.
Perhaps perl-qa is a little overwhelmed with
