On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 11:33 +0200, François Perrad wrote: > I did a mistake when I reused for a fakexecutable the name 'tapir' > from a project which seems abandonned since 3 months > (in http://github.com/leto/tapir, last commit on January 26, 2010)
"Stable" != "abandoned". Besides, dukeleto being a Parrot committer, you could always just ask him. :-) > I wrote a TAP consumer library in PIR, in the following files (and > their histories) : > These files contain no code fragment from > http://github.com/leto/tapir. > I did a partial "manual compilation" or a port (Perl5 to PIR, Perl5 > regex to PIR) > of some Perl5 modules from CPAN : > Somebody who really read my code, can not speak of fork or copy > +tweaked > like I read in the referenced IRC log. I'm glad to hear this was just a misunderstanding, and I apologize for the confusion on my part. My next question though is "Why?" If there was already a TAP consumer project in existence that you knew about, why write another one from scratch? Why not just extend the current one? > In the future, I'll continue this "manual compilation" with > TAP::Formatter::Color and TAP::Formatter::Console::ParallelSession > parts. > Currently, I do the same thing with the Perl5 modules URI & LWP > (coming soon). Each of these modules is either large or does not seem sufficiently "required" to be going in to Parrot core. They feel more like something that should be in an external project. Or was that already your intention? > As I already wrote in > http://lists.parrot.org/pipermail/parrot-dev/2010-April/004110.html > if needed the current fakexecutable 'tapir' in Parrot tree could be > renamed 'parrot-prove'. Yes, that would reduce confusion significantly, I think. :-) -'f _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
