MidLifeXis

• About: I provide solutions.

Recent Actions

• Commented on Faster PDL Development Cycle---But How?
  How about ejecting all of the parts into their own modules, and leaving the main namespace (the "just works" part) as an integration layer that has requires statements in the META files for the distribution. The CPAN tools handle the...
• Commented on Test::More has lots of crazy new development that's breaking my modules
  If the tester is not testing Test::More, why is it using a trial version of Test::More? Shouldn't the cpantester node be using the production version of everything that is not actively under test? Just my $0.02....
• Commented on /usr/local/bin rant
  /usr/local, on some platforms, is not secure. On other platforms, /usr/contrib is an unsecure location. There is a reason not to include it in root's default path. Under cron (or system startup, or manually running scripted tasks), I typically have...

Comment Threads

• Vyacheslav Matyukhin commented on /usr/local/bin rant

  Oops, I copy-pasted Neil's code and forgot to replace the link. Thanks! :)

• Robert Rothenberg commented on Test::More has lots of crazy new development that's breaking my modules

  As a module author, I also don't want to see fails for spurious reasons for my modules.

  I think the only time I've used that as a reason to not use a module was when that module hadn't been updated in several years, and consistently fails on recent versions of Perl.

  I believe that CPAN Testers has a way that you can mark specific tests as not-applying just for…

• Ether commented on Test::More has lots of crazy new development that's breaking my modules

  > I don't think CPAN Testers is doing the right thing by using broken Test::More's that aren't available for normal installations.

  I strongly disagree. What if these Test::More changes *were* production ready? Receiving these failing reports, before Test::More sees a stable release, would be vital to identifying issues with your code, so you have a chance to fix it before that stable release and everyone is affected. The smokers can't know whether this trial is nearing production readiness or not.

  CPAN test reports are my best indicator of whether my code is working for eve…

• CPAN Testers commented on Test::More has lots of crazy new development that's breaking my modules

  Firstly. @preaction CPANTS != CPAN Testers. They are two very different projects.

  Secondly, this is a conversation that has cropped up before, and I'm still in two minds about it. Short answer: I tend to side with brian. The tester platform shouldn't be doing any testing with the trial/development releases of pre-requisities, unless the tester is going to manually filter the results and send to the pre-requisite author if appropriate. I do understand Ether's perspective too, and there is merit in h…

• exodist7 commented on Test::More has lots of crazy new development that's breaking my modules

  As the person making the Test::More changes, I have to agree with this idea:

  Failures due to alpha versions of Test::More should not be red marks against OTHER modules that in no way took action to cause the problem.

  If I had known they did show up there I probably would have been reluctant to release these alphas. The alphas are valuable and help me find a lot of issues... but I don't want other people to be dinged from them. I myself judge modules based on the pass/fail ratio in cpan testers.

  At the very least these should be unknown, not fail (in metacpan/cpan dis…