On Wednesday 27 February 2008 09:40:58 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> On Wed Feb 27 05:59:58 2008, coke wrote:
> > 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
On Wed Feb 27 09:57:55 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Are you depending on having Test::Harness 3?
Not at this point for the tests covered by 'make test'.
On Wed Feb 27 10:07:44 2008, pmichaud wrote:
>
> Since this is the first time in a while that META.yml
> has changed, I think we should attach this ticket or a new
> one to #51054 ("Parrot 0.6.0 release").
Dependency and comment added to that ticket.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:33:49PM -0800, James Keenan via RT wrote:
> 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
> r260
# from James Keenan via RT
# on Wednesday 27 February 2008 09:40:
>The output of Test::Builder changed at 0.64_01, which falls in between
>the 0.60 we had in the distro and the 0.72 which most (but not all) of
>our developers are likely to be using now.
>...
>Two possible solutions: Either elimin
On Wed Feb 27 05:59:58 2008, coke wrote:
>
> 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
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
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Parker via RT wrote:
> > On Thu Jun 28 16:34:17 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> While comparing pdd15_objects compared to the tests located in
> >> t/pdd15oo we cannot find evidence the following tests exist:
>
