I am certainly not going to consider 24 hours of silence a reason to stamp
a stable label on it. Rjbs and I have a status meeting every week, if
things were completely silent for 2 weeks we were going to evaluate the
situation and move on from there.

In addition we still need people from the qa hackathon in berlin to confirm
or reject the assertion that their punch list items are satisfied before
the Test::Builder component can be marked stable. If they choose to be
silent on this thread we will reach out to them directly.

My point is, things are not going to happen over night, and silence will
not be taken as a seal of approval. That said, indefinite silence will also
not be considered a blocker past a point, but no time limits have been set
either way.

On Feb 6, 2016 2:13 AM, "Kent Fredric" wrote:
On 6 February 2016 at 08:14, Chad Granum wrote:
If there is anything in these
distributions (Test2 in particular) that makes you uncomfortable, you
need to speak now.

Mentioning here for visibility:

As with Test-Stream where the apparent silence lead to a premature
conclusion that finalisation was appropriate, I feel interpreting the
current lull in activity in the same way equally premature.

I've seen a proposal floating around that might raise our ability to
be confident about the feature set of Test2 before requiring its

Just the people who I talked to who implied they were going to present
said proposal haven't yet had the tuits to do so yet.


KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 3 of 4 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupcpan-workers @
postedFeb 5, '16 at 7:15p
activeMar 2, '16 at 10:02p

2 users in discussion

Chad Granum: 3 posts Kent Fredric: 1 post



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase