On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 10:18:19PM -0500, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> Anyone have any ideas on this blip?
>
> http://handelframework.com/coverage/blib-lib-Handel-Base-pm.html
>line #171
>
> Lord knows, it doesn't really matter since that's the only piece left,
> but I'm kinda of curious. Th
David Golden wrote:
> I have to second this. There really shouldn't be separate "conforms
> to 1.0" and "conforms to 1.2" metrics and so on. What happens as the
> spec evolves? Unless the spec is broken, encouraging specific "latest
> spec compliant" is just churn and Kwalitee breaks if there's
On 11/6/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And realistically, Ken, Adam and I (maintainers of the major install tools)
really control most of the META.yml generation anyway. If we don't upgrade,
you don't upgrade.
Well, that's not entirely true for things like "no_index" or var
Back in August I posted here about Crucible, a tool for kernel testing.
We've completed a new release, version 1.7, available here:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/crucible/crucible-1.7.tar.gz
I'm scheduled to be presenting this at the November PDX.pm Perl Monger's
meeting (http://portland
* David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-06 05:40]:
> I have to second this. There really shouldn't be separate
> "conforms to 1.0" and "conforms to 1.2" metrics and so on.
> What happens as the spec evolves? Unless the spec is broken,
> encouraging specific "latest spec compliant" is just chu
