demerphq wrote:
> 2009/2/27 Michael G Schwern <schw...@pobox.com>:
>>>> The more we do this, the more we're going to find "exceptions", the more
>>>> hacks
>>>> we have to put into place and what's going to wind up happening is we're
>>>> not
>>>> going to want to move things into ext. Making ext/ as much like the normal
>>>> module process as possible smooths out the transition.
>>> I'll try to keep an open mind and assist where I can, but from where I
>>> sit this is just shifting time and attention away from important
>>> things like fixing known bugs and getting releases out the door toward
>>> putting out all the fires that will inevitably arise from breaking
>>> something that is known to be stable and working.
>> That's the general purpose excuse for any change. It doesn't fly, volunteers
>> aren't interchangeable parts. You can't say "don't scratch that itch,
>> scratch
>> this one". I will freely admit I'm doing this because it's been a royal pain
>> in my ass for years.
>>
>> I'm going to reverse the advice and instead of continuing to justify this
>> change I'll just implement it and see whether the sky remains up.
>
> Note you have been warned by two committers that this has undesirable
> consequences.
The plan changed in the middle of this argument and I think that wast lost. I
no longer plan to do it with make subtests but rather by hacking t/TEST and
t/harness. It should work out to no visible change. Rather than untangle the
miscommunication in email its simpler and faster for me to just do it and let
the code speak for itself.
--
191. Our Humvees cannot be assembled into a giant battle-robot.
-- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army
http://skippyslist.com/list/
