Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet
mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete
roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed
r
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet
> mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete
> roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed
> requirements. Or s
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:43:30PM -0600, Ken Williams wrote:
I think there's one really good argument in favor of splitting it out
and one really good argument against.
In favor: if we knew the subset of build_requires that were actually
needed for testing, then it woul
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:43:30PM -0600, Ken Williams wrote:
> I think there's one really good argument in favor of splitting it out
> and one really good argument against.
>
> In favor: if we knew the subset of build_requires that were actually
> needed for testing, then it would be easier for
On Mar 28, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:
I think someone had proposed a year or two ago that there should be a
test_requires options and I argued against it. Now, I think maybe it
was a good idea; especially, since the number of extra testing modules
being used have increased a lot over
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:05:28AM -0500, Robert wrote:
> "Tests let you know, right away, when they're screwed up your code"
>
> Should be: Tests let you know, right away, when they've screwed up your
> code
>
> or
>
> Should be: Tests let you know, right away, when they're are screwing up yo
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:04:54AM -0500, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> I was. But at some level, I'm not.
> If after changing one dist to use M::B I have more issues than I started
> with [which was just checking the syntax of my manually edited
> META.yml], then there's no reason to move all of
On Mar 28, 2005, at 4:21 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:
I think someone had proposed a year or two ago that there should be a
test_requires options and I argued against it. Now, I think maybe it
was a good idea; especially, since the number of extra testing modules
being used have increased a lot over
"Michael G Schwern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 06:28:21PM +, Adrian Howard wrote:
>> PS "O'Reilly will have a small book soon" ?
>
> Oh yeah, that's the developer's testing notebook Ian Langworth and
> chromatic
> are working on.
>
Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
Sticking with ExtUtils::MakeMaker. :-)
[But where's the fun in that.]
I know you're joking, but you've flipped my rant switch.
I was. But at some level, I'm not.
If after changing one dist to use M::B I have more issues than I started
with [which was just checking
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 08:35:34PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Whether things that are required for *testing* belong in
> > build_requires really depends on whether you view testing as an
> > integral part of the build process. This is something that is likely
> > to depend on the *builder
11 matches
Mail list logo
