Give me a break, G.W.
You think nobody is happy with mod_perl? You think it's okay to take
the mis-speakings of a good Perl contributor (JB) out of context and try
to use them as some kind of evidence (for what?)? That's mean-spirited
and inaccurate, and I don't feel like hearing it. "[sic]"? God. Stop.
If this is how you evaluate tools, then please consider your evaluation
complete and move on to some other tool and some other conversation.
We'll keep on using the best stuff.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (G.W. Haywood) wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
>>
>> if (defined @foo_in) {
>
># On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>#
># defined @bar and defined %bletch are almost never correct, and any
># seasoned Perl hacker knows to watch for those as a red flag.
>
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
>>
>> Regarding your question of Nov 3 [regarding `make test' failure],
>> I don't see any cause for alarm. Are you seeing problems on actual
>> code, or only [sic] in the test harness?
>>
>> All of my production mod_perl systems are fine, even though I've
>> never bothered to look into why make test was failing.
>> Are you planning to use Apache::src in your system?
>
>= In 1998, Lincoln Stein and Doug MacEachern wrote:
>=
>= ``Any messages about failed tests, however, are cause for concern.
>= If you see such a message, you should rerun the tests with the
>= verbose flag (make test TEST_VERBOSE=1). You can try to track
>= down the problem yourself, or post the results to the mod_perl
>= mailing list...''
>= -- the Eagle Book
>
>Dear Mr. Baker,
>
>If you have "never bothered" to find out why `make test' is failing
>then obviously you don't have any "production mod_perl systems". In
>the light of the comments from Mr. Schwartz, it looks like you have
>only development systems that haven't gone wrong yet, and that a lot
>of other people might be in the same boat, thanks to you.
>
>This has cost me nearly four weeks already, and I dread to think how
>many other people have wasted their time because you never bothered.
>
>For me, your slapdash approach has polluted the mod_perl resource to
>the extent that now I don't trust any of it. The entire exercise is
>written off to experience and I am looking for alternatives.
>
>Earlier in November, Stas Bekman put out a message saying something
>like: "Come on, guys, let's get some of this stuff to work".
>
>Surely no-one can be content with the state things are in at present?
>
>Kind regards,
>Ged Haywood.
>
------------------- -------------------
Ken Williams Last Bastion of Euclidity
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Math Forum
