Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes schrieb:
On Wed, June 20, 2007 11:18 pm, djh wrote:
Since 5.9.5 is basically a beta 5.10.0, I would actually make it
a test version of a new perl5.10 package (so perl5.10-5.9.5-1).
Since 5.9.5 is 5.9.5, you should leave it as it is and not
give it some whimsical name. S
djh schrieb:
Since 5.9.5 is basically a beta 5.10.0, I would actually make it
a test version of a new perl5.10 package (so perl5.10-5.9.5-1).
Since 5.9.5 is 5.9.5, you should leave it as it is and not
give it some whimsical name. Such is that which causes confusion.
It is better to keep standa
On Wed, June 20, 2007 11:18 pm, djh wrote:
>> Since 5.9.5 is basically a beta 5.10.0, I would actually make it
>> a test version of a new perl5.10 package (so perl5.10-5.9.5-1).
>
> Since 5.9.5 is 5.9.5, you should leave it as it is and not
> give it some whimsical name. Such is that which causes
Since 5.9.5 is basically a beta 5.10.0, I would actually make it
a test version of a new perl5.10 package (so perl5.10-5.9.5-1).
Since 5.9.5 is 5.9.5, you should leave it as it is and not
give it some whimsical name. Such is that which causes confusion.
It is better to keep standards and names,
On Wed, June 20, 2007 6:39 pm, Reini Urban wrote:
> I almost have that ready, I just wait for some of my cygwin patches
> upstream.
>
> With current blead (5.9.5) I get now the same number of failing tests as
> with 5.8 ../lib/Net/Ping/t/500_ping_icmp.t21 50.00% 2
> being the
I almost have that ready, I just wait for some of my cygwin patches
upstream.
With current blead (5.9.5) I get now the same number of failing tests as
with 5.8
../lib/Net/Ping/t/500_ping_icmp.t21 50.00% 2
being the only leftover.
How should we name it so that users can e
