On Monday 07 July 2008 17:37:41 Jason Cole wrote:
> James Keenan wrote:
> > (Coleoid: Does this update cause any problems for you on Win32 without
> > ICU?)
>
> No visible problems from prove and Configure. Output seems the same and
> indicates success. Pasted in #parrot.
>
>
> Trying to 'make'
James Keenan wrote:
> (Coleoid: Does this update cause any problems for you on Win32 without
> ICU?)
No visible problems from prove and Configure. Output seems the same and
indicates success. Pasted in #parrot.
Trying to 'make', though, I've started emitting hundreds of 'warning: control
re
James Keenan via RT a écrit :
On Mon Jul 07 04:46:52 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you think you could 'svn up', reconfigure, and then let me know if
your patch is still needed?
Also send output of 'prove -v t/steps/auto_icu*.t' and 'perl
Configure.pl --verbose-step=auto::icu'.
Thanks.
James Keenan via RT a écrit :
Please review the patch attached. Note the following:
1. As mentioned in my last post in this RT, the flow in this step
class's runstep() method is quite convoluted. I tried to improve it,
but this step still has five different points at which it can return. I
h
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
On Jul 1, 2008, at 23:01, "James Keenan via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On Tue Jul 01 18:34:25 2008, coke wrote:
I would err on the side of removing them. No point in keeping unused
items after the refactor, especially if you're going to end up having
to write te
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:10 PM, James Keenan via RT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please review the patch attached. Note the following:
>
> 1. As mentioned in my last post in this RT, the flow in this step
> class's runstep() method is quite convoluted. I tried to improve it,
> but this step stil
