On 27 June 2014 07:18, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> * David Cantrell [2014-06-26T09:19:00]
>> I understand that Test::Builder::Tester is the way to go these days -
>> and it's distributed with Test::Builder, so incompatibilities should
>> never* happen.
>
> Test::Tester is really nice and easy to use.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 06:18:35PM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> * David Cantrell [2014-06-26T09:19:00]
> > I understand that Test::Builder::Tester is the way to go these days -
> > and it's distributed with Test::Builder, so incompatibilities should
> > never* happen.
>
> Test::Tester is really
* David Cantrell [2014-06-26T09:19:00]
> I understand that Test::Builder::Tester is the way to go these days -
> and it's distributed with Test::Builder, so incompatibilities should
> never* happen.
Test::Tester is really nice and easy to use.
Test::Builder::Tester is awful and often requires th
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:47:46PM +0900, Fergal Daly wrote:
> Upcoming changes are going to break it (in a fairly easy to paper over
> way). I am not involved in Perl at all anymore. If someone wanted to
> take it on, I'd be quite happy to hand it over.
>
> Details are in
>
> https://rt.cpan.or
Upcoming changes are going to break it (in a fairly easy to paper over
way). I am not involved in Perl at all anymore. If someone wanted to
take it on, I'd be quite happy to hand it over.
Details are in
https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=96719
F
