On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 02:59:34PM +0100, Sawyer X wrote: > 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? No, I just started on the assumption that I was fixing regressions, then ended up with a bunch of fixes that it turned out weren't actually regressions, and felt suitably cheated ;-) I guess it can wait. -- You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.Thread Previous | Thread Next