Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[PATCH] Add BROKEN.pod

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Chromatic

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 9:17:30 PM10/3/05
to Perl 6 Internals
Hi there,

Here's (finally) a collection and summary of all of the known broken
items in Parrot right now as a patch to create BROKEN.pod in the top
level directory. If this isn't the right name or place to put the file,
that's fine.

I'll check this in in two days with regard to feedback from anyone whose
opinion matters and what to call it and where to put it, if my initial
choice isn't perfect.

-- c


b0rked.patch

Joshua Hoblitt

unread,
Oct 3, 2005, 11:05:18 PM10/3/05
to chromatic, Perl 6 Internals
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 06:17:30PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
>
> I'll check this in in two days with regard to feedback from anyone whose
> opinion matters and what to call it and where to put it, if my initial
> choice isn't perfect.

I'm wondering if this wouldn't be better split up into RT tickets
similar to the way TODOs are handled. Having everything in one coherent
document is great but I suspect that significantly lowers the odds of
the individual items being kept up to date.

Cheers,

-J

--

Andrew Dougherty

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 11:58:31 AM10/4/05
to Chromatic, Perl 6 Internals
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Chromatic wrote:

> Here's (finally) a collection and summary of all of the known broken
> items in Parrot right now as a patch to create BROKEN.pod in the top
> level directory. If this isn't the right name or place to put the file,
> that's fine.

> +=item * Allow Building with a Different Compiler
> +
> +Parrot relies on values pulled from the Perl 5 configuration, even with
> +C<--ask>. Andy Dougherty says that:
> +
> + $ perl Configure.pl cc=XX cxx=XX link=XX ld=XX
> +
> +should, but doesn't, work.

You can remove that one. I've now fixed it [perl #37160]. (There may yet
be warts, but the basic work is in.)

--
Andy Dougherty doug...@lafayette.edu

Leopold Toetsch

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 12:30:05 PM10/4/05
to Joshua Hoblitt, chromatic, Perl 6 Internals

There are 2 philosophies amongst people: some prefer RT, others prefer
one document in the tree. The goal could be to auto-create BROKEN from
RT tickets then. (I prefer one file, btw ;-)

> Cheers,
>
> -J

leo

Joshua Hoblitt

unread,
Oct 4, 2005, 3:46:18 PM10/4/05
to Leopold Toetsch, chromatic, Perl 6 Internals
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 06:30:05PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> There are 2 philosophies amongst people: some prefer RT, others prefer
> one document in the tree. The goal could be to auto-create BROKEN from
> RT tickets then. (I prefer one file, btw ;-)

That shouldn't be too hard with the RT cli. Regenerating BROKEN could
be just another release step. I'll take a stab at it if the consensus
is to go that way.

-J

--

Chromatic

unread,
Oct 5, 2005, 6:01:35 PM10/5/05
to Joshua Hoblitt, Perl 6 Internals
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 17:05 -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:

> I'm wondering if this wouldn't be better split up into RT tickets
> similar to the way TODOs are handled. Having everything in one coherent
> document is great but I suspect that significantly lowers the odds of
> the individual items being kept up to date.

Maybe so. The difference between this and a list of bugs is that these
are higher-level problems that prevent various people from making
progress on important things. Generating this list out of RT is
probably fine though, if it's quick and easy.

-- c

Joshua Hoblitt

unread,
Oct 6, 2005, 5:53:31 AM10/6/05
to chromatic, Perl 6 Internals

I attempted to mechanize Pod generation from RT tickets this morning and
ran into what I suspect is a bug in the RT client. Why don't we just
commit BROKEN as is, make a note about it in RELEASE_INSTRUCTIONS, and
plan on moving towards it being generated from RT in the future?

Cheers,

-J

--

Chromatic

unread,
Oct 7, 2005, 9:37:56 PM10/7/05
to Joshua Hoblitt, Perl 6 Internals
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 23:53 -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:

> I attempted to mechanize Pod generation from RT tickets this morning and
> ran into what I suspect is a bug in the RT client. Why don't we just
> commit BROKEN as is, make a note about it in RELEASE_INSTRUCTIONS, and
> plan on moving towards it being generated from RT in the future?

Committed, added to the MANIFEST, and mentioned in README in #9404.

-- c

0 new messages