On 31/10/2007, Klaas-Jan Stol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2007 4:35 AM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 October 2007 19:27:52 James Keenan wrote:
> >
> > > As has been the case lately, a couple of 'pirc'-related files have
> > > been failing metadata and coding st
On Oct 31, 2007 4:35 AM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 October 2007 19:27:52 James Keenan wrote:
>
> > As has been the case lately, a couple of 'pirc'-related files have
> > been failing metadata and coding standards tests. Here's results
> > from make test on Linux tonight
On Oct 31, 2007 10:08 AM, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 31/10/2007, Klaas-Jan Stol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2007 4:35 AM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 30 October 2007 19:27:52 James Keenan wrote:
> > >
> > > > As has been the case lately,
Is it ok to revert r22361 now (where chromatic removed the linelength
test from the set of default run tests)?
kjs
On Oct 31, 2007 10:55 AM, Klaas-Jan Stol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2007 10:08 AM, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 31/10/2007, Klaas-Jan Stol <[EMA
sorry, it should have read r22631.
On Oct 31, 2007 11:33 AM, Klaas-Jan Stol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it ok to revert r22361 now (where chromatic removed the linelength
> test from the set of default run tests)?
>
> kjs
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2007 10:55 AM, Klaas-Jan Stol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
On 31/10/2007, Klaas-Jan Stol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sorry, it should have read r22631.
>
> On Oct 31, 2007 11:33 AM, Klaas-Jan Stol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it ok to revert r22361 now (where chromatic removed the linelength
> > test from the set of default run tests)?
If the tests
just few comments about pdd19 :
1) Directive .namespace
.namespace
is currently valid, and I understand its behavior as : back to the default
2) Directive .const with PMC
.const .String str = "text"
the form .type is currently required.
Have you plan to deprecated it in favour
On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:51 PM, chromatic via RT wrote:
On Monday 29 October 2007 20:02:52 James Keenan via RT wrote:
Tonight I again had failures in 3 files in t/tools/ops2pmutils/.
I again had to implement Coke's suggestion and run: make -f
tools/dev/ops_renum.mak
This renumbered the ops
> Subject: [BUG] Segfault after parallell build
Sorry, didn't read the output carefully enough: it's a compilation
error, not a segfault. The other informations should be accurate ;)
--
Moritz Lenz
http://moritz.faui2k3.org/ | http://perl-6.de/
hi,
attached a patch indicating that labels may only be written within a
compilation unit, which is more or less implied in the current description.
it could be rephrased for style.
kjs
Index: docs/pdds/draft/pdd19_pir.pod
===
--
Refactored module and associated test files committed to trunk in r22648.
Refactored module and associated test files committed to trunk in r22649.
Remaining uncovered code would require mocking Perl 5's Config for one
value; probably not worth the effort. Resolving ticket.
The patch refactors configuration step class auto::isreg to increase
testability in a manner similar to other recent patches. The two C
probes are refactored into individual internal subroutines and an
internal method handles the rest of the code inside runstep(). Three
additional test files are
14 matches
Mail list logo
