On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 01:12:51PM -0800, Ovid wrote: > Hi all, > > Andy Lester sent me an email (which I'm relaying with permission) > saying that he feels the TAPx::Parser distribution is a good candidate > for Test::Harness 3.0. > > To see how well this works, Andy Armstrong is now working on > TAPx::Harness::Compatible. All of the Test::Harness tests have been > copied over and it's intended that all of them should pass before we > release this. > > Obviously, nothing will get renamed to Test::Harness without Andy > Lester's blessing. Further, nothing will simply be 'rushed into place' > without extensive testing and we want to feel *extremely* comfortable > that we're not going to break anything. We want this to be > *completely* backwards compatible, but would like to hear feedback from > folks about any issues we might want to be aware of. > > We're particularly keen to known what Rafael and Nicholas think, since > they're the pumpkings and keeper of the keys. >
The primary feature that we've seen missing in the Perl core is the ability to run tests in parallel. This would greatly reduce our timelines in the fix-make-make test cycle that we go through in making changes in the core. Overall, I believe that we need to be a bit cautious in taking a new rewrite of Test::Harness into the core. Before commiting it to the core, I'd like to use it in the smoke tests first to make sure that any performance issues are discovered in advance, and that we are able to tap into the wide variety of architectures and operating systems that the core smoke tests allow. Since the smokes allow us to apply patches before the first Configure is run, this should certainly be something easy to accomplish. If everything looks OK from the smokes, I don't see any reason why we wouldn't make the switch. Steve Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
