On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Peter Rabbitson <ribasu...@cpan.org> wrote:
> This is my (hopefully final) followup to the Test::More debacle. > I doubt it. :-) Or, rather, I hope not. > On April 16th I participated in a closed door discussion about the current > direction of this bedrock module. An overwhelming majority was content with > how things were handled, thus the work is slated for continuation. > I resent that you continue to mis-characterize the discussion whenever it suits your rhetorical purposes. I urge you to check that impulse and stay with the process as we discussed then, because the rhetoric gets in the way of constructive discussion. > My position (for the record) remains unchanged - the current work being > released as the 1.301xxx_xxx series has fundamental design issues, while > the codebase itself was developed and continues being developed in a > reactionary manner. > You raise two different issues: (1) "fundamental design issues" (2) "developed.. in a reactionary manner" This is why I asked that we consider these separately in Berlin. With regards to #1, at the time, you had no objections to the *design*. Have you changed your mind? If so, what has happened in the last 2 weeks to do so? With regards to #2, we — and I include you, Peter, in the "we" — agreed on a punchlist to assess the quality of the implementation of the design. Let's stick with that for a moment, please. First on that list was a single branch and corresponding release to CPAN of the proposed code. I, too, am seriously dismayed by the amount of churn since the hackathon. I'm not convinced we have stable "proposed" code. There were two dev releases at the hackathon (_104, _105) and four dev releases (_106 .. _109) since. None of the releases are tagged in the repo, so as best I can tell, since dev release _105 there have been over 2,000 lines of changes. ( https://gist.github.com/dagolden/25c9981c69a2b0468fff ) Even with a mix of code/POD, that's a lot, and I think invalidates every previous code review, spot-test, and regression analysis done to date. Therefore I am recusing myself from the $Level/$TODO review tasks that I > volunteered to perform. I have not started pouring over the code in > earnest, so I do not know whether there are showstopper bugs lurking > underneath. > As long as the code continue to churn, I consider you under no obligation to conduct such a review. But I agree that such a review should be a prerequisite to the code moving forward, so if you insist on removing yourself from the process, I hope someone else will volunteer rather than have the punchlist item "satisfied" by forfeit. What I'm not clear on is whether the churn is more in the Test::Stream implementation or the compatibility wrappers for Test::Builder. Both possibilities concern me, albeit in different ways. If Test::Stream itself is still in the experimental stage — with all the code churn that implies — then's lets just accept that. In that case, I think the best course of action is for Chad to split it out from Test-Simple and release it to CPAN. Let an ecosystem build around it and after it achieves stability, then we can reconsider using it as the basis for Test::Builder at a later date. David -- David Golden <x...@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC: @xdg
