Oh, the other 0.24, right. Will look into it.
Adam K On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jens Rehsack <rehs...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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 >
