On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:36:19AM +0100, Andreas J. Koenig wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:51:10 -0500, "David Golden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> said: > > > However, I'd like to get some consensus on how interrupted commands > > should be graded. I should be able to detect that the process died > > with an alarm signal, but frankly, I'd like a wider interpretation for > > any process that dies from a signal -- where $? & 127 is true. > > > Options: > > > (1) DISCARD -- just throw it away as junk > > > (2) UNKNOWN -- indicating that something weird/inconclusive happened > > (3) DISCARD but write a skeleton of a mail to a tempfile and let the > user decide if he wants to add words and send the mail.
This is exactly what I used to do. I would occasionally send the report to the author only, to inform them that they should consider defaults and only accepting at most 2 empty responses. If they really need user input then the MAkefile.PL should exit with 0, or the tests should skip. I don't think this should be an UNKNOWN as it will likely only be UNKNOW to automated testers, regular users will see the prompts and (hopefully) respond appropriately. It's a grey area, but (3) seems the better solution. Barbie. -- Birmingham Perl Mongers - http://birmingham.pm.org Memoirs Of A Roadie - http://barbie.missbarbell.co.uk
