2010/11/29 Adam Kennedy <a...@ali.as>: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehs...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Can you please prove whether https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=63342 >> is because of your changes and answer the ticket accordingly? >> >>> Nothing I've changed has any effect on the module itself, and Jens >>> should be able to continue his work and do his first release as per >>> normal. >> >> Not really - because of this the time pressure increased. I'm even not sure >> what module should get highest priority ofter next SQL::Statement/DBI >> release, but this action forces me to L::MU and this might disappoint >> people like Merijn (Tux) who's waiting for reworked P::PT since nearly a >> year now. > > According to the bug reporter himself, the bug was in 0.24.
Which was uploaded by you at Nov 22th. The RT is reported on Nov 25th. > The bug is labelled that way in RT and the reported states that it > remains unfixed in 0.26, which is to be expected as I did not make any > changes that would fix any bugs in the module itself. But nor should > the repackaging have introduced any new bugs. Wrong :( Tassilo had uploaded a 0.23 and 0.24 (with other bugs), which he later deletes and left only 0.25_nn - but there were people having installed 0.23 or 0.24 updating now to your repackaged 0.22 as 0.24 ... 0.26. > I'll try to replicate on a 5.8.8 system later today, but this should > not change your priority (although the existence of a Critical > Twiki-breaking bug might). P::PT has critical reports, too. We'll see :) /Jens
