Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2017
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 Deparse.pm. 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 Deparse.pm 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/Deparse.pm > * 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 KeenanThread Previous | Thread Next