On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:14:58AM -0700, James Keenan via RT wrote:
> It means I didn't do anything with it one way or the other. Since it
> pertains to a different test, it probably would have been better off in
> a separate RT.
>
> If someone else can look at it prior to tomorrow's release, th
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 04:28:26AM -0700, James Keenan via RT wrote:
> On Sun Mar 16 19:28:53 2008, kraai wrote:
> > Howdy,
> >
> > t/examples/pasm.t fails because examples/pasm/fact.pasm now outputs 30
> > factorials, whereas the test case only expects it to output 6.
>
>
> I was just at the po
