Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2017
On 02/27/2017 01:05 PM, James E Keenan wrote: > 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. I'm also inclined to go with "No" due to the same reason. (At the risk of repeating Jim almost verbatim.) Is there a special reason why this be merged right now?Thread Previous | Thread Next