On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:33:11PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:59:40PM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > To do it properly it would need to be on a machine somewhere which would
> > accept uploaded coverage databases from anyone who wanted to submit one.
> >
> > I di
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:59:40PM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
> To do it properly it would need to be on a machine somewhere which would
> accept uploaded coverage databases from anyone who wanted to submit one.
>
> I discussed cover.perl.org or something with Andy and Robrt on irc a
> while back
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 12:54:00PM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> >Nope. You're free to run it yourself though. :)
> >
> >Its likely to be pretty appauling because of all the multi-platform code
> >and that XS code is untested.
>
> I'll just take your word for it. :-)
Well, I ran it myself and it i
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:24:42AM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
are MM or MB analyses posted anywhere for general perusal ?
Nope. You're free to run it yourself though. :)
Its likely to be pretty appauling because of all the multi-platform code and
that XS code is unte
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:24:42AM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> are MM or MB analyses posted anywhere for general perusal ?
Nope. You're free to run it yourself though. :)
Its likely to be pretty appauling because of all the multi-platform code and
that XS code is untested.
> That'd be cool, but
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:24:42AM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> >That's ok. The overall coverage report can show the union of all
> >reports for that version of the module.
>
> That'd be cool, but how does this merge/combining magically happen ?
To do it properly it
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:45:39AM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
Theres another issue: coverage can depend upon presense of other modules,
ex Test::Warnings, being installed on testers boxes, those tests would
be skipped otherwise,
and perceived coverage would suffer.
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:45:39AM -0700, Jim Cromie wrote:
> Theres another issue: coverage can depend upon presense of other modules,
> ex Test::Warnings, being installed on testers boxes, those tests would
> be skipped otherwise,
> and perceived coverage would suffer.
That's ok. The overall
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:45:52AM +0100, S?bastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
> > * As mentioned, Devel::Cover is not perfect and often screws up test
> > results, threading particularly is a problem, so that it will give
> > false negatives. This is a common problem, one example is Test::More.
Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
Selon Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:54:44PM +0100, S?bastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
Instead of running the code on one server, where it's a problem, why
not running on machines where all prereq modules are already instal
Selon Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:54:44PM +0100, S?bastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
> > Instead of running the code on one server, where it's a problem, why
> > not running on machines where all prereq modules are already installed,
> > i.e. on machines where
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:54:44PM +0100, S?bastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
> Instead of running the code on one server, where it's a problem, why
> not running on machines where all prereq modules are already installed,
> i.e. on machines where one *wants* to install the module ? Let's add an
>
Michael G Schwern wrote:
I think it would be a powerful addition to CPAN. If you go to the
distribution page for any module - say, for example, Class::DBI
(http://search.cpan.org/~tmtm/Class-DBI/)
Trouble right there. Now search.cpan.org has to run untrusted code so
a jail would have to be constr
13 matches
Mail list logo
