On 2011.11.22 11:02 AM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>> By being THE testing framework, it places an upper bound on how fast
>> anyone's tests can be. 10 .t files per second, no faster. That
>> sucks.
>
> I agree. But, with XS mouse, you're only cutting the startup time to
> 0.07s from 0.09s, correct?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> The major Mo[ou]se features that Test::Builder2 uses heavily is roles and
> attributes. It also uses types, coercion, meta classes and method modifiers,
> but those could be removed if necessary. I've tried to keep it simple to
> avoid
On 2011.11.22 11:22 AM, David Golden wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>> Is there a way to remove some of the work Mouse is doing at startup?
>> What is it doing?
>
> How much of Mouse is needed? Could Moo be used? (I ask without
> having read the details of the OO
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:47:19PM +0100, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
>
> The site is up (with an ugly logo left as an incentive for volunteers to
> improve the site looks), and will reply to http://2012.qa-hackathon.org/
> as soon as the DNS are updated (same IP as for 2011).
DNS should hopefu
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> Is there a way to remove some of the work Mouse is doing at startup?
> What is it doing?
How much of Mouse is needed? Could Moo be used? (I ask without
having read the details of the OO breakdown of TB2)
-- David
# from Michael G Schwern
# on Monday 21 November 2011 17:56:
>In every single .t file that gets run by just about everybody.
>
>By being THE testing framework, it places an upper bound on how fast
> anyone's tests can be. 10 .t files per second, no faster. That
> sucks.
I agree. But, with XS m
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 04:48:58PM +0100, Miss Barbie wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 01:07:36AM +0200, Lars Dɪᴇᴄᴋᴏᴡ
> 迪拉斯 wrote:
> > To the usual suspects on this list, especially the ones who could
> > not attend the last times: when do you have time around April?
> > (Traditionally, the QA hack
- Original Message -
> From: Michael G Schwern
> There's a bug in use_ok() that effects 0.98_01 and 1.5. So I'm going to
> hold
> off on a new alpha for a day or two and it's either fixed or I'll roll
> it back.
> https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=67538#txn-1002509
Ah, jus
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:35 AM, yary wrote:
> I'd think Michael has the interests of CPAN smoke testers in mind with
> these performance benchmarks. You're right in that for the typical
> developer, it's not significant.
Just to offer a contrasting viewpoint: if you're using TDD, you're
running
Threads are now working in Test::Builder1.5. That's the last missing feature,
Test::Builder1.5 can now do everything 0.98 can! Huzzah!
If anyone want to see how much working with threads suck, just have a look at
this hack.
https://github.com/schwern/test-more/blob/Test-Builder1.5/lib/TB2/Thread
>
> From: Michael G Schwern
>
>On 2011.11.21 4:07 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
>> But then how often does one need to 'use Test::More'? Not enough to
>> bother optimising it, I'd say.
>
>In every single .t file that gets run by just about everybody.
>
>By being THE te
11 matches
Mail list logo
