> On Jun 11, 2019, at 6:22 AM, Felipe Gasper <fel...@felipegasper.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 11, 2019, at 5:56 AM, David Cantrell <da...@cantrell.org.uk> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 08:45:27PM +0200, E. Choroba wrote: >> >>> I've just noticed one of my distribution failed in 5.28.1. When examining >>> the report, I found it failed under "strict hashpairs". I had no idea what >>> it was, so I Googled - and found it's a cperl thing. Reading the report >>> carefully I noticed it was indeed generated by cperl. See >>> http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/0de93324-8933-11e9-9997-9db8de51d2a1 >>> >>> I have no problem with cperl smoking CPAN, but I'm not sure it's a good >>> idea to include its results among normal Perl versions. What do you think? >> >> FWIW I'd quite like to get notifications when my code fails on cperl >> even if those test results should probably be excluded from aggregates >> like the number of passes/fails. There's a lot to like about cperl. > > Likewise. > > -F
Right. Some of y'all would, so the long-term end-goal difference between interpreters and variants is that interpreters would be "opt-out" of notifications, and variants would be "opt-in" to notifications. So, step one is prevent spurious reports by filtering them, and then step two is allow an opt-in. Doug Bell d...@preaction.me
