On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:09:38AM -0000, Steve Hay wrote:
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > Change 33113 by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2008/01/29 22:22:25
> > [ 32871]
> > Subject: Re: Smoke [5.11.0] 32864 FAIL(F) MSWin32 Win2003 SP2
> (x86/1
> > cpu) From: Abe Timmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:24:10 +0100
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Skip lib/File/Temp/t/fork.t when there is no fork.
> >
> > Affected files ...
> >
> > //depot/maint-5.10/perl/lib/File/Temp/t/fork.t#1 branch ...
>
> That test was further updated by #32889, which hasn't been integrated
> yet. Was that deliberate or an oversight?
Oversight. For some reason it wasn't in my pending changelist mailbox
> Also, I see this latest round of integrations went into maint-5.10
> rather than 5.8. Who's the maint pumpking for that now? Are you doing
> 5.10 as well as 5.8? (Indeed, did you mean to integrate to 5.10 rather
> than 5.8?)
For now I'm merging "obvious" changes back to maint-5.10, so that I can then
merge them onwards to maint-5.8
I probably could have got away with just the dual life modules and key
bugfixes, but it's actually easier to reduce the size of my pending
changelist mailbox by merging anything else that is quick and easy.
("changes the API in the headers" or "core patch to a dual-life module" need
thinking about, so generally aren't. Tests to dual life modules are a bit of
a grey area)
Nicholas Clark
