Re: TAP::Harness and -w

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > * Leon Timmermans [2013-09-17T11:26:40] > > Just as I expected, "make it a wiki" means it gets warnocked again. > > > > Can we please make a decision, or if we must first come to an agreement > on > > how to make it? > > Allow me to offer t

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

* Leon Timmermans [2013-09-17T11:26:40] > Just as I expected, "make it a wiki" means it gets warnocked again. > > Can we please make a decision, or if we must first come to an agreement on > how to make it? Allow me to offer this: https://github.com/Perl-Toolchain-Gang/ExtUtils-MakeMaker/pull

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

> Cons of adding -w to test runs: > - you get warnings from dependencies (and their dependencies) because -w > enables global action at a distance > - using fatal warnings may cause your test suite to fail because of > warnings in dependencies you don't directly control - you c

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

* Leon Timmermans [2013-09-18T19:21:44] > Or both just setting $Test::Harness::switches = ''… Yes. I was cleaning out ~/tmp on the flight over here and I found this dzil plugin: package inc::STFUEUMM; use Moose; extends 'Dist::Zilla::Plugin::MakeMaker'; use namespace::autoclean; afte

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > It looks like Module::Build already has use_tap_harness. So what's > suggested > is a patch to ExtUtils::MM_Any to switch from Test::Harness to > TAP::Harness...? > Or both just setting $Test::Harness::switches = ''… Leon

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

* Ovid [2013-09-18T04:19:28] > As I said in my previous email on July 7th: backwards-incompatible changes to > the backwards-compatibility layer (Test::Harness) are not a good idea. The > proper response is to have people impacted by this issue switch to > TAP::Harness, as was suggested several ye

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

;perl-qa@perl.org" > >Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013, 17:26 >Subject: Re: TAP::Harness and -w > > > >On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Ovid wrote: > >I'm winding up with astonishingly little bandwidth due to launching our >company, so I was hoping to

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

# from Leon Timmermans on Tuesday 17 September 2013: >odds are no one ... looked at that wikipage ... >IMO, it's the wrong medium. I agree. Also, Test::Harness is the wrong module for this discussion. # from chromatic on Tuesday 17 September 2013: >Pro of adding -w to test runs: >- that'

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Mark Stosberg wrote: > I think a pro/con list is a reasonable request. I've read all the > messages myself, am a regular user of Perl's testing tools, and the > benefits and drawbacks are not clear to me either. > > An attempting-to-be-neutral summary would be ver

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

On 09/17/2013 01:20 PM, chromatic wrote: > On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 01:13:26 PM Mark Stosberg wrote: > >> An attempting-to-be-neutral summary would be very helpful. > > Pro of adding -w to test runs: > - that's how Test::Harness has always worked, and people might be > relying > on

Re: Re: TAP::Harness and -w

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 01:13:26 PM Mark Stosberg wrote: > An attempting-to-be-neutral summary would be very helpful. Pro of adding -w to test runs: - that's how Test::Harness has always worked, and people might be relying on that behavior Cons of adding -w to test runs:

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

On 09/17/2013 11:26 AM, Leon Timmermans wrote: > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Ovid > wrote: > > I'm winding up with astonishingly little bandwidth due to launching > our company, so I was hoping to see a strong consensus from the > users. I would

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Ovid wrote: > I'm winding up with astonishingly little bandwidth due to launching our > company, so I was hoping to see a strong consensus from the users. I would > also love to see examples of where the change or lack thereof is causing an > issue. I am SWAMPED w

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Ovid wrote: > What toolchain software is being impacted by this and how hard would it be to > make the switch? AFAIK only ExtUtils::MakeMaker and Module::Build use it. The latter can already use TAP::Harness, but there are some details we'd might want to fix first

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

- Original Message - > From: Karen Etheridge > > On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 02:45:22AM -0700, Ovid wrote: >> Were I not so bandwidth-constrained, this would be less of an issue, but > I'd like to see a good Wiki page or something with the pro/con arguments > laid out. If this is too much

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 02:45:22AM -0700, Ovid wrote: > Were I not so bandwidth-constrained, this would be less of an issue, but I'd > like to see a good Wiki page or something with the pro/con arguments laid > out. If this is too much, I should turn over maintainership to someone with > more ba

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

- Original Message - > From: Ricardo Signes > > * Leon Timmermans [2013-07-04T14:04:21] >> By what process? Define consensus? Given Andy is the official >> maintainer and Ovid is the effective maintainer, I don't think they >> need our consensus a priori. > > 06perms.txt says: > >

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

* Eric Wilhelm [2013-07-04T17:33:45] > # from Leon Timmermans on Thursday 04 July 2013: > >> ewilhelm : We should keep the original change, but update EUMM to > >>restore -w > > > >I'm not sure that's what he meant. > > Yeah no. I said get rid of Test::Harness. > > TAP::Harness provides a cle

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

# from Leon Timmermans on Thursday 04 July 2013: >> ewilhelm : We should keep the original change, but update EUMM to >>restore -w > >I'm not sure that's what he meant. Yeah no. I said get rid of Test::Harness. TAP::Harness provides a cleaner interface and this default only exist in the old c

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

* Leon Timmermans [2013-07-04T14:04:21] > By what process? Define consensus? Given Andy is the official > maintainer and Ovid is the effective maintainer, I don't think they > need our consensus a priori. 06perms.txt says: Test::Harness,ANDYA,m Test::Harness,MSCHWERN,c Test::Harness,OVID,c

Re: TAP::Harness and -w

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > > I just submitted: > > https://github.com/Perl-Toolchain-Gang/Test-Harness/pull/16 > > ...to document two undocumented changes. First, the removal of "turn on -w by > default with no easy way to turn it off" and secondly the reversion of

TAP::Harness and -w

I just submitted: https://github.com/Perl-Toolchain-Gang/Test-Harness/pull/16 ...to document two undocumented changes. First, the removal of "turn on -w by default with no easy way to turn it off" and secondly the reversion of that. These commits are, respectively: https://github.com/Perl