On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagalt...@gmx.de> wrote:
> that is the one conversation I unfortunately did not attend, so I have > no way of knowing what you refer to. The stuff you quoted from Peter’s > appears totally innocuous to me, as well, so that does not help me. Can > you be more explicit about what of it constitutes a mischaracterisation > in your opinion? > "an overwhelming majority was content with how things were handled..." Most of the people in the discussion agreed that Test::Builder had issues worth fixing. Most of the people in the discussion agreed that the proposed design (largely in terms of functional decomposition) seemed like it would address the identified problems. "...thus the work is slated for continuation" Most of the people in the discussion agree that there were a number of specific hurdles that the proposed implementation of the design needs to clear before people would be comfortable with it replacing the existing Test::Builder. So, in my view, a majority of people were *NOT* content with how things were handled and put obstacles in the way of progress because of that. I'll accept his statement that his way of expressing his point of view is innocent rather than malicious. It nonetheless implies (a) that few obstacles remain and (b) everyone agrees about that (or that no one cares), which – ironically – is pretty much the opposite of what I think is the case and what I think makes for a constructive conversation about code. David -- David Golden <x...@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC: @xdg
