On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:01 PM, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Golden writes:
> > > Seems like a lot of headache. Why not just save the tarballs
> > > somewhere?
> >
> > Were there tarballs in the fi
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Golden writes:
> > Seems like a lot of headache. Why not just save the tarballs
> > somewhere?
>
> Were there tarballs in the first place?
Presumably at some point, for modules that live on CPAN.
> Suppose a Fedora o
David Golden writes:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So let's see what needs to be done in order to be able to keep
> > the test files and run them later.
> >
> > There are two concerns I could immediately see.
> > 1) Tests might assume a certai
On Thursday 10 April 2008 04:14:15 Gabor Szabo wrote:
> The issue was raised on the Oslo Hackathon that it would be cool
> if we could keep the tests around so that they can be executed
> later again making sure that even after one has upgraded other
> parts of his system the previously installed
Test::TAP is now available at http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-TAP/.
Currently the only tests exposed are those to validate whether or not a
TAP stream passed:
use Test::TAP;
is_passing_tap $tap1, 'TAP tests passed';
is_failing_tap $tap2, 'TAP tests failed';
This will be expanded later
--- Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue was raised on the Oslo Hackathon that it would be cool
> if we could keep the tests around so that they can be executed
> later again making sure that even after one has upgraded other
> parts of his system the previously installed modules sti
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So let's see what needs to be done in order to be able to keep
> the test files and run them later.
>
>
> There are two concerns I could immediately see.
> 1) Tests might assume a certain directory structure, they might s
The issue was raised on the Oslo Hackathon that it would be cool
if we could keep the tests around so that they can be executed
later again making sure that even after one has upgraded other
parts of his system the previously installed modules still work as
expected.
AFAIK the issue did not get an
One issue we covered at the Hackathon was how to do nested TAP. The
suggestion that was adopted was not backwards-compatible, but it was
felt this was OK because the TAP consumer specifically had to request
this.
I hated this decision, but was hard-pressed to argue against it because
making thing
--- Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what's wrong with throwing them the !~ m/^[a-z][a-z0-9_]*$/ bone
> and
> keeping the future reserved words within that constraint? Everything
> else is "something else".
The main issue here is actually convincing Schwern. He stated quite
clearl
# from chromatic
# on Wednesday 09 April 2008 10:52:
>Even in the few cases where you need to shuttle TAP documents back and
> forth, the plan is to include version information in the document,
> correct? Isn't the point of including a version so that TAP
> consumers will be able to consume the d
11 matches
Mail list logo
