On Saturday 22 December 2007 18:07:27 James Keenan wrote:
Nearly everything applied and ran fine for me, but I have one question:
> Index: t/configure/115-auto_warnings-06.t
> ===
> --- t/configure/115-auto_warnings-06.t (revision 0
On Sun Dec 23 01:07:45 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Is it necessary to check in commented code?
No, I caught that after I had uploaded the patch. The patch I will
apply omits that commented-out code.
I'm not sure what caused this bug in the first place, but it appears to
have been worked out. All tests in this file were passing in a sample
of smoke reports, and they passed for me this morning on Linux as well.
So I'm resolving the ticket.
On Sunday 23 December 2007 06:48:57 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> I'm not sure what caused this bug in the first place, but it appears to
> have been worked out. All tests in this file were passing in a sample
> of smoke reports, and they passed for me this morning on Linux as well.
> So I'm reso
Some refactoring of runstep() done to make its internals more testable.
One additional test file added in r24178 (23 Dec 2007). There is still
uncovered code.
# New Ticket Created by Stephen Weeks
# Please include the string: [perl #49061]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=49061 >
Working on getting parrot to parse the lojban grammar, I found that it
would hang forev
Some code refactored out of runstep() in r24180 in order to make it more
testable. Placeholder test file renamed and tests added. There is
still uncovered code.
