Hiya,
On 29 Oct 2011, at 10:20, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On 2011.10.29 1:51 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
On 29 Oct 2011, at 09:18, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
[snip]
Do you find *blocks with their own name and plan* convenient, or subtests
which have their own separate test state
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
On 2011.10.30 2:58 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
I prefer the current subtests system for a few reasons:
* With the new system I would have to re-write TAP streams from other sources
to match the numbering system of the
On 2011.10.30 7:21 PM, David Golden wrote:
I haven't followed the T::B 2 work closely enough, so could I ask you
to please step back and explain the benefits of T::B 1.5 that is worth
stepping backwards in terms of capabilities? What I mean is that we
have TAP::Harness now that processes
