develooper Front page | perl.qa | Postings from April 2016

Re: Test2/Test::Builder release plan

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Leon Timmermans
Date:
April 7, 2016 16:59
Subject:
Re: Test2/Test::Builder release plan
Message ID:
CAHhgV8hyB2sZ5SWb3zwwg4yK-5Kkq=owiyCCSzjErJKfLwpVQA@mail.gmail.com
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Chad Granum <exodist7@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> RJBS and I have spoken, and feel it is time to set a release date for
> Test2/Test-Builder. We have agreed that doing it at the QAH in Rugby is a
> good time. The plan is to release Test2 and the new Test::Builder as stable
> either at the end of the first day, or the start of the second day (so the
> 21st or 22nd of april). This gives a full day for people to grab me in
> person to talk about it, and address any issues. It also gives 2 full days
> after the release where my attention can be fully devoted if any issues are
> discovered post-release.
>
> I expect little if any changes to occur in the code between now and then.
> Possibly some small bug fixes, documentation updates, etc. nothing big. I
> will continue to listen to any feedback that is provided, and take any
> necessary action. In the meantime RJBS is going to be pinging stakeholders
> from the punch-list (
> https://github.com/Test-More/test-more/wiki/Test-Builder-v1.3-Punchlist)
> to make sure all requirements have been met.
>
> What exactly is going stable?
>
> * Test2 (experimental notices will be removed)
>
> * Test::Builder that uses Test2 under the hood (as seen here:
> https://metacpan.org/release/EXODIST/Test-Simple-1.302013_014)
>
> * Test2-Suite (experimental notices will be removed)
>
> * Final Test2/Test-Simple patch for perl blead (Test-Suite is not going
> into blead)
>
> I look forward to seeing you all in Rugby!
>


I think 1 is a good idea, but I have some reservations about the 2 (and
thus 4). Is it really advantageous to switch over everyone to Test2 today?

I think Test2 has major benefits for some people (it makes new things
possible), but it also has major disadvantages for others (it breaks
stuff); both have unknown upper bounds. And to be honest, for the vast
majority I don't feel like it will matter; they don't need (much) more than
Test::More.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make this opt-in?

Leon

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About