On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:01:17AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> The only thing worth mentioning is that with perl 5.003,
> the following happens:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ perl5.003 Makefile.PL
> Can't locate ExtUtils/Command.pm in @INC at Makefile.PL line 4.
>
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:34:12AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> On 2006-04-23, at 02:26:54 -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:01:17AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> > > The only thing worth mentioning is that with perl 5.003,
> > > the following
On 23 Apr 2006, at 07:02, Andy Lester wrote:
[snip]
I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have
failed. If you rely on the output at the end, it's different now.
[snip]
I'll just repeat what I left on Andy's blog here in case anybody
agrees with me.
I don't like the
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:07:18 +0100, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On 23 Apr 2006, at 07:02, Andy Lester wrote:
> [snip]
> > I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have
> > failed. If you rely on the output at the end, it's different now.
> [snip]
>
> I'll just r
On 2006-04-23, at 01:02:00 -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> I'm approaching the end of this release cycle. I really want to get
> this released.
>
> I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have failed.
> If you rely on the output at the end, it's different now.
I've run it throug
On 2006-04-23, at 02:49:14 -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:34:12AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> > On 2006-04-23, at 02:26:54 -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:01:17AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> > > > T
On 2006-04-23, at 02:26:54 -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:01:17AM +0200, Marcus Holland-Moritz wrote:
> > The only thing worth mentioning is that with perl 5.003,
> > the following happens:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] $ perl5.003 Makefile.PL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Automated smoke report for 5.9.4 patch 27938
kirk: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.00GHz (GenuineIntel 1994MHz) (i686/1 cpu)
onlinux - 2.6.15-20-386 [debian]
using cc version 4.0.3 (Ubuntu 4.0.3-1ubuntu5)
smoketime 17 hours 54 minutes (average 1 hour 7 m
On 4/23/06, H.Merijn Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:07:18 +0100, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 23 Apr 2006, at 07:02, Andy Lester wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have
> > > failed. If you rely on th
On 23/04/06, Steve Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What's happening above is that TEST cannot handle seeing tests come in
out of order, while harness can. I'm scanning Test::Harness::TAP a bit,
but it seems to be unspecified whether this is OK or not. Should TEST
care if the tests are reported
On Sunday 23 April 2006 15:08, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:07:18 +0100, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > On 23 Apr 2006, at 07:02, Andy Lester wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have
> > > failed. If you rely on the
On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
> harness.
No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
-- c
On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
> > harness.
>
> No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
>
I agree that a well-defined test ou
On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:46, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> I agree that a well-defined test output protocol is useful. However, are
> you implying that assuming we have that, one can write several different
> test harnesses to process such test outputs? (I'm just guessing.)
No.
> Wouldn't that imply du
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 01:02:00AM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> I'm approaching the end of this release cycle. I really want to get
> this released.
Tests pass. One "not numeric" warning:
t/00compile.ok 1/6Argument "2.57_06" isn't numeric in subroutine
entry at t/lib/Test/More.pm line 6
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 01:02:00AM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> I'm approaching the end of this release cycle. I really want to get
> this released.
>
> I've removed the meaningless percentages of tests that have failed.
> If you rely on the output at the end, it's different now.
>
> xoa
> >
On Sunday 23 April 2006 23:11, chromatic wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:46, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > I agree that a well-defined test output protocol is useful. However, are
> > you implying that assuming we have that, one can write several different
> > test harnesses to process such test outpu
Hi,
Andy, I know you subscribe to perl-qa so I didn't CC.
These two patches add support for detecting cycles in code
references, using PadWalker, to Devel::Cycle and Test::Memory::Cycle.
Currently this will silently stop working if PadWalker is not
installed to keep things tidy - I personally fe
Oops, bad patch.
I added lib/Test/Memory/Cycle.pm as a symlink so that I don't have
to 'make' each time to run the tests.
--
Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://nothingmuch.woobling.org 0xEBD27418
pgpPKFcAKsI6l.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Moin,
On Sunday 23 April 2006 23:08, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 23:11, chromatic wrote:
> > On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:46, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > > I agree that a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
> > > However, are you implying that assuming we have that, one can write
Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 22:35, chromatic wrote:
>> On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:05, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>>> This debate demonstrates why a plugin system is necessary for a test
>>> harness.
>> No, it demonstrates why a well-defined test output protocol is useful.
>>
>
> I agree
On Sunday 23 April 2006 15:46, Michael Peters wrote:
> How about a good TAP parser module that does nothing but parse TAP. Then
> it could be used in all kinds of test harness permutations.
That's exactly what I want and precisely why I think a well-defined TAP is
more important than a plugin sy
David H. Adler wrote:
Tests pass. One "not numeric" warning:
t/00compile.ok 1/6Argument "2.57_06" isn't numeric in subroutine
entry at t/lib/Test/More.pm line 670
This is the same warning I reported in an earlier message:
http://groups.google.com/group/perl.qa/msg/fee69dde25cf42ec
This is the same warning I reported in an earlier message: http://
groups.google.com/group/perl.qa/msg/fee69dde25cf42ec
Given the wise counsel of a former Phalanx strategos ("every
warning your test suite throws is a bug which must be tracked
down"), I spent several hours looking at this t
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 04:14:01PM -0400, David H. Adler wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 01:02:00AM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> > I'm approaching the end of this release cycle. I really want to get
> > this released.
>
> Tests pass. One "not numeric" warning:
Of course, I forgot to mention: P
25 matches
Mail list logo
