5.8.8-dor on cygwin status
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed --- ../lib/File/Temp/t/mktemp.t255 65280 98 88.89% 6-9 ../lib/File/Temp/t/object.t255 6528026 42 161.54% 6-26 ../lib/File/Temp/t/security.t 136 46.15% 3 5 7 11-13 ../lib/File/Temp/t/tempfile.t 255 6528022 34 154.55% 6-22 io/tell.t 281 3.57% 28 op/filetest.t 101 10.00% 8 51 tests and 213 subtests skipped. Failed 6/973 test scripts, 99.38% okay. 50/101291 subtests failed, 99.95% okay. -- H.Merijn BrandAmsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/) using Perl 5.6.2, 5.8.6, 5.8.7, & 5.9.2 on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00 & 11.11, AIX 4.3, SuSE 9.2, SuSE 9.3, and cygwin. http://www.cmve.net/~merijn Smoking perl: smokers@perl.org, perl QA: http://qa.perl.org reports to: [EMAIL PROTECTED],perl-qa@perl.org
Re: 5.8.8
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 12:28:52PM -0500, Steve Peters wrote: > The only other exception would be changes to re-entrant functions through > reentr.pl, where the generated code is quite different than that in bleadperl. Until and unless one of us figures out how to merge the code. Nicholas Clark
Re: 5.8.8
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 05:29:39PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > If there's a plan for 5.8.8, it goes roughly like this > > 0: All changes that apply to maint are integrated from blead > > 1: Changes should be in blead by midnight (GMT) on the 16th October 2005 > > 2: RC1 will probably appear within a week > > > I'll be out of the country for the first week in October, and probably mostly > incommunicado. I'll be in the country for the second week, but again mostly > incommunicado. This definitely isn't a problem, as > > a: how patches get into blead *isn't* my direct concern > b: stable stuff isn't done as a last minute rush job > > [You may read this as "if not being able to get patches into maint at the last > minute worries you, then those patches will by definition worry me"] > > Clearly if anyone wants to fix bugs in pseudohashes or 5005 threads, then > those patches have to go direct to maint. But I believe that little else > does. > The only other exception would be changes to re-entrant functions through reentr.pl, where the generated code is quite different than that in bleadperl. Steve Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5.8.8
If there's a plan for 5.8.8, it goes roughly like this 0: All changes that apply to maint are integrated from blead 1: Changes should be in blead by midnight (GMT) on the 16th October 2005 2: RC1 will probably appear within a week I'll be out of the country for the first week in October, and probably mostly incommunicado. I'll be in the country for the second week, but again mostly incommunicado. This definitely isn't a problem, as a: how patches get into blead *isn't* my direct concern b: stable stuff isn't done as a last minute rush job [You may read this as "if not being able to get patches into maint at the last minute worries you, then those patches will by definition worry me"] Clearly if anyone wants to fix bugs in pseudohashes or 5005 threads, then those patches have to go direct to maint. But I believe that little else does. Nicholas Clark
Re: 5.8.8?
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:45:16PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: > On 8/9/05, Alexey Tourbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay. My concern is that bugfix changes are not tagged as "bufixes" (at > > least as they come through perl5-changes), so there's a chance you can > > miss the one when there's a lot of them. > > I should get more verbose in my application logs... > > > (Being more specific, I'm concerned about change #24367 (and also > > changes #24703 and #24709) that fixes getppid() cache; the change was > > made before 5.8.7 release and did not find its way into 5.8.7; there's > > a chance it's not in again if you simply review the changes made after > > 5.8.7 release.) 5.8.7 slipped quite a bit. I decided that it was better to get it out than try to keep going through the backlog I had already. I will go through the backlog, and it's actually easer to do so, because I don't have a direct record of where 5.8.7's release came - the change messages all sit in a mailbox and get deleted once I've concluded whether they are to be integrated or aren't suitable. > Yes, IMO this one should go in maint. Yes, it looks like it should. (But there's looking quickly, and thinking slowly and committing. And I don't think that 11pm is a good time to start the latter) Nicholas Clark
Re: 5.8.8?
On 8/9/05, Alexey Tourbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay. My concern is that bugfix changes are not tagged as "bufixes" (at > least as they come through perl5-changes), so there's a chance you can > miss the one when there's a lot of them. I should get more verbose in my application logs... > (Being more specific, I'm concerned about change #24367 (and also > changes #24703 and #24709) that fixes getppid() cache; the change was > made before 5.8.7 release and did not find its way into 5.8.7; there's > a chance it's not in again if you simply review the changes made after > 5.8.7 release.) Yes, IMO this one should go in maint.
Re: 5.8.8?
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:22:59PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > What if I'm interested in taking partial responsibility for this? > > Whoever does maintenance tends to be drawn from someone who has already > been committing to the development branch. I think that this would be more > help would be useful. Actually merging across patches is relatively > simple, once the decision is taken about what to merge. > > I also think that there is considerable potential for confusion with more > than one person doing it. Okay. My concern is that bugfix changes are not tagged as "bufixes" (at least as they come through perl5-changes), so there's a chance you can miss the one when there's a lot of them. (Being more specific, I'm concerned about change #24367 (and also changes #24703 and #24709) that fixes getppid() cache; the change was made before 5.8.7 release and did not find its way into 5.8.7; there's a chance it's not in again if you simply review the changes made after 5.8.7 release.) pgpMZyQGUlS7W.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 5.8.8?
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 02:38:38PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:22:59PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > Whoever does maintenance tends to be drawn from someone who has already > > been committing to the development branch. I think that this would be more > > help would be useful. Actually merging across patches is relatively > > ^than ?? er, oops. "I think that this would be *where* more help would be useful" (ie the general development track stuff. Particularly actually figuring out the causes of bugs and attempting fixes) > > simple, once the decision is taken about what to merge. and I notice that "about 1 month" is actually 2. So it seems that I can't count either. Oops again. Nicholas Clark
Re: 5.8.8?
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:22:59PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > Whoever does maintenance tends to be drawn from someone who has already > been committing to the development branch. I think that this would be more > help would be useful. Actually merging across patches is relatively ^than ?? > simple, once the decision is taken about what to merge.
Re: 5.8.8?
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:02:36AM +0400, Alexey Tourbin wrote: > Hello, > > Does someone integrate bugfixes into 5.8 branch? Me. (except that I've not done anything for about a month. I don't find this worrying, as it's not time for a new maintenance release yet) > What if I'm interested in taking partial responsibility for this? Whoever does maintenance tends to be drawn from someone who has already been committing to the development branch. I think that this would be more help would be useful. Actually merging across patches is relatively simple, once the decision is taken about what to merge. I also think that there is considerable potential for confusion with more than one person doing it. Nicholas Clark
