On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:33 PM, James Keenan via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue Feb 26 19:02:04 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Patch applied tonight in r26082. > > There's a bit of mop-up work needed as pointed out by chromatic on #parrot. > > 1. Should 'lib/Test' be removed from the: > no_index: > directory: > > element in META.yml. I felt it should, because that directory has > ceased to be part of the Parrot distribution. So I patched META.yml in > r26083. > > 2. The versions of Test::(Simple|More|Builder) previously contained in > lib/Test/ were, for all practical purposes, from the v0.60 CPAN > distribution. By deleting them, Parrot::Test defaulted to using > whatever version of Test::Builder was default on my various boxes. In > both cases, this was 0.72. Between 0.60 and 0.70, the output from > failed tests changed. When I prepared my patch, I changed the expected > output in 6 tests contained in t/perl/Parrot_Test.t to match the output > I was actually getting. > > chromatic noted that this implies that we should mark a minimum version > of Test::Builder needed to get the output expected in Parrot_Test.t. > Examination of the Test-Simple distribution's Changes file > (http://search.cpan.org/src/MSCHWERN/Test-Simple-0.76_02/Changes) > suggests that this change occurred in 0.64_01 Mon Sep 4 04:40:42 EDT > 2006. Since I would not want to specify a 4-decimal-places version > number as the minimum required, that would suggest going to the next > higher 2-decimal-places version number that was a meaningful change. > That would be 0.66. > > Should that be the minimum version? Or, perhaps we should say, 0.72 > which (I think) was the version that came with 5.10?
I would recommend marking whatever version came with 5.8; If we require a module that came with 5.10, we've effectively upped our base perl requirement, and I don't think we're quite ready to jump to 5.10 yet. Is the version that came with 5.8 sufficient for our needs? > kid51 > > > -- Will "Coke" Coleda
