>> Yes, so typical scenario :
>>
>> = Gozer volounteers to be release manager for 1.99_17
>> = New branch from HEAD => mod_perl_1_99_17_RC1
>> = Adjust version number and stuff on the branch and check in
>> = Tar the branch and publish as RC1
>> = Make RC1 bugs fixes on the branch
>> = When ready
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Yes, so typical scenario :
= Gozer volounteers to be release manager for 1.99_17
= New branch from HEAD => mod_perl_1_99_17_RC1
= Adjust version number and stuff on the branch and check in
= Tar the branch and publish as RC1
= Make RC1 bugs fixes on the branch
= When ready fo
I have been trying to take care of the problem Apache::Reload is having with
clearing certain types of subroutines. This problem also exist in at least
2 other places, namely ModPerl::PerlRun and sections, that both also
need to be able to destroy a namespace (a module, really).
It occured to me
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 13:52, Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
> Or you can (simply put) "delete $Foo::Bar::{'Baz::'};". Deleting the entire stash
> from that package.
Wow, that's cool. I didn't know you could do that. I like it.
- Perrin
> Or you can (simply put) "delete $Foo::Bar::{'Baz::'};". Deleting the
> entire stash
> from that package.
you're sick. sick, sick, sick.
I love it ;)
just out of curiosity, did you try deleting the special glob entries, like
$Foo::Bar::Baz{CODE}?
> +sub module_to_package {
> +my $module
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Or you can (simply put) "delete $Foo::Bar::{'Baz::'};". Deleting the
entire stash
from that package.
you're sick. sick, sick, sick.
I love it ;)
just out of curiosity, did you try deleting the special glob entries, like
$Foo::Bar::Baz{CODE}?
Deleting the package's stash del
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Yes, so typical scenario :
= Gozer volounteers to be release manager for 1.99_17
= New branch from HEAD => mod_perl_1_99_17_RC1
= Adjust version number and stuff on the branch and check in
= Tar the branch and publish as RC1
= Make RC1 bugs fixes o
Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> what if you want to unload just Foo and not Foo::Bar? CGI and Digest
> come to mind...
It's really hard to make module unloading work 100% reliably because
0) {modules} != {packages} so reloading a module will influence
every package it
This new patch addresses the issue Geoff pointed out. Deleting package Foo, shouldn't
delete
package Foo::Bar.
It actually makes the patch a bit simpler, deleting all entries in the package's stash
only
skipping the ones ending in '::'. Still works like a charm for me.
More Comments ?
--
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Or you can (simply put) "delete $Foo::Bar::{'Baz::'};". Deleting the
entire stash
from that package.
Sounds cool, but I'd first check with p5p whether they think it's safe. I
think stashes contain all kind of things you might want to keep. If it w
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
This new patch addresses the issue Geoff pointed out. Deleting package
Foo, shouldn't delete
package Foo::Bar.
It actually makes the patch a bit simpler, deleting all entries in the
package's stash only
skipping the ones ending in '::'. Still works like a charm for me
Stas Bekman wrote:
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
This new patch addresses the issue Geoff pointed out. Deleting package
Foo, shouldn't delete
package Foo::Bar.
It actually makes the patch a bit simpler, deleting all entries in the
package's stash only
skipping the ones ending in '::'. Still works
Stas Bekman wrote:
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Or you can (simply put) "delete $Foo::Bar::{'Baz::'};". Deleting the
entire stash
from that package.
Sounds cool, but I'd first check with p5p whether they think it's safe. I
think stashes contain all kind of things you might
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
what if you want to unload just Foo and not Foo::Bar? CGI and Digest
come to mind...
It's really hard to make module unloading work 100% reliably because
-1) Perl doesn't keep track of all the necessary bits to allow this clea
Stas Bekman wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:34:01PM -0700, Stas Bekman wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 07:55:25PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:54:13AM -0700, Stas Bekman wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
Thanks Joe.
Any chance this can be rewritte
"Philippe M. Chiasson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > 2) symbols are occasionally aliased into other namespaces (eg Exporter),
> > and those aliases won't get rebound once the new symbol definitions
> > are loaded.
>
> Well, partially true. It just means the existing aliases will
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
This new patch addresses the issue Geoff pointed out. Deleting
package Foo, shouldn't delete
package Foo::Bar.
It actually makes the patch a bit simpler, deleting all entries in
the package's stash only
skipping the ones
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
[...]
No, I suggested to figure out whether we are running under 2.0 or 2.1
and then use the appropriate method, without trying both. e.g.:
if (httpd 2.0) {
# the current way
} else {
# 2.1 has apxs -q AP[RU]_CONFIG as the definitive location
m
18 matches
Mail list logo
