develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2017

Re: fixes for 5.26.0?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
James E Keenan
February 27, 2017 12:06
Re: fixes for 5.26.0?
Message ID:
On 02/27/2017 06:05 AM, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> I've just pushed the following branch:
>     smoke-me/davem/deparse
> which I propose be merged into blead now.
> It contains lots of fixes for I worked on it because
> there were new unexpected failures with 't/TEST -deparse' since 5.24.0,
> although it turned out that all the things I fixed in were
> already broken in 5.2.40 - it was just new or modified test scripts that
> were triggering new failures.
> (TEST -deparse works by passing each test script through Deparse first and
> then executing the deparsed output as if it were a normal test script).
> Since we're in code freeze and my branch isn't (as it turns out) fixing
> 5.24.0 regressions, should this branch be applied?

My inclination is to say "No".  That's mostly on the procedural ground 
that a code freeze ought to mean what it says.  Once we allow one 
non-essential change in, we become obligated to evaluating every other 
proposed change.  That takes mental focus away from the issues we 
already know we have to resolve during the freeze.

But, of course, other people may feel differently.

Also, I can't recall a whole lot of discussion of this issue on list or 
in RT -- and at this point in the cycle that to me recommends waiting.

It contains
> modifications only to:
>     * lib/B/
>     * lib/B/Deparse.t
>     * Porting/deparse-skips.txt
>     * t/TEST - which is now more informative on various types of
>                 './TEST deparse' issues.
> From the final commit message:
>     Add the 27 currently unexpected failing tests to the 'known failing' list
>     in deparse-skips.txt. These most likely represent newer or modified test
>     scripts which tickle existing Deparse issues rather than regressions in
>     Deparse, but I haven't examined them to check.
>     By adding them in, we're kind of resetting the clock - perhaps in future
>     we won't allow new failures to appear.
>     There are now 174 known failing scripts out of 2555. At the start of this
>     branch there were 178 known failing and 84 unexpectedly failing scripts.
>     In 5.24.0 there were  207 known failing and 174 unexpectedly failing scripts.

Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About