New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Discrepancy between Porting/perltodo.pod and pod/perlhack.pod re t/cmd/ #12752
Comments
From @jkeenanThere is a discrepancy between Porting/perltodo.pod and pod/perlhack.pod Porting/perltodo.pod says: ##### The subdirectories base, cmd and comp, that contain the pod/perlhack.pod says: ##### Since we don't know if require works, or even * t/cmd, t/run, t/io and t/op Now that basic require() and subroutines are tested, In point of fact, there are two test files in t/cmd/ which "require ##### t/cmd/while.t There aren't that many files in t/cmd/ to begin with: ##### We need to investigate this discrepancy. Are the files *not* currently Once we make a determination, then updating the tests becomes something Thank you very much. |
From @nwc10On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 03:34:37PM -0800, James E Keenan wrote:
Well spotted.
lexsub.t definitely can go "later" (ie t/op/) because it's testing something I think that while.t can also go later, because (a) it's testing more So I'd suggest that both of these two belong in t/op I think that t/cmd/for.t can be split - everything starting from I think that all the others are things that really should be working Nicholas Clark |
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From itcharlie@gmail.comThis patch was prepared at the NY Perl Hackaton by Charlie Gonzalez and Please review. On Sat Feb 02 15:34:36 2013, jkeen@verizon.net wrote:
|
From @jkeenanOn Sat Mar 02 13:53:37 2013, itcharlie wrote:
The patch attached updates the MANIFEST and addresses one issue which we Nick, I think this follows the roadmap you set out. Agreed? Thank you very much. |
From @nwc10On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 05:35:28AM -0800, James E Keenan via RT wrote:
You didn't attach the patch Also, I feel that the *whole* change should be in one patch, as it all The e-mail address on their patch is taqqui@sandbox03.nj1.rubensteintech.com a) is that correct? and desired? I tend to put the new address in AUTHORS as the commit before the new author's
Yes. It seems to be all there apart from the housekeeping. Nicholas Clark |
From @nwc10On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:21:12PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
I forgot to add. Due to a bug fix patching t/cmd/for.t in commit but I found that I can apply it to 89e006a^ and then rebase onto Nicholas Clark |
From @nwc10On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:21:12PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Actually, forgot to say, it *has* to be in one patch. Nicholas Clark |
From @jkeenanOn Tue Mar 05 06:39:09 2013, nicholas wrote:
We will straighten out the housekeeping and submit a new patch. In the meantime, how does the code look? Thank you very much. |
From @nwc10On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 07:46:13PM -0800, James E Keenan via RT wrote:
Well, the moved files are byte-for-byte perfect (assuming that the patch is I think that the commented out code in t/op/for.t should go. Things like Nicholas Clark |
From @jkeenanOn Wed Mar 06 00:19:17 2013, nicholas wrote:
Previous patch, plus one additional correction from one of the hackathon Thank you very much. |
@jkeenan - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#116615 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT116615$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: