Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

Actually, try this one first:


On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Chad Granum <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have attached 5 patches, can you try each one individually and see if
> any of them make your problem go away?
>
> Some of these patches will break Test-Simples test suite, Best option is
> to -I /path/to/patched  or use a localib and apply the patch in there. None
> of these patches are actually something I would put into the repo, they are
> just to see if we can narrow down the problem.
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Chad Granum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I have no problem blocking on #589, so long as it remains actionable. We
>> need to try to narrow down on the problem, and if possible reproduce it
>> somewhere else.
>>
>> Does this occur on any other cpan module?
>> Would you mind trying to find out?
>> Does it still happen in mobogdb in a fresh/new perlbrew if you spin one
>> up?
>> Until we find a way to reproduce this in a condition that is not "xdg's
>> machine and module" would you mind running the tests with a handful of
>> patches (1 at a time) if I get them to you asap? (to help me hone in on the
>> problem)
>>
>> If we cannot find any other module or machine to reproduce the issue, and
>> you are unable or unwilling to help debug then I will have an objection to
>> blocking on this.
>>
>> -Chad
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:08 AM, David Golden <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I consider this ticket a blocker:
>>> https://github.com/Test-More/test-more/issues/589
>>>
>>> I realize that it's hard to replicate and we may need to see if the
>>> problem crops up elsewhere for confirmation, but sporadic global
>>> destruction memory errors isn't something I want released to the world.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Chad Granum <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> _110 uploaded as expected, documentation changes only. Unless someone
>>>> else reports something that NEEDS to be fixed, nothing will be touched
>>>> until stable.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Chad Granum <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do not consider Test-Stream to be experimental. I am also unhappy
>>>>> with the churn that has occurred, and recognize that it makes things hard
>>>>> for people who are spot-checking me, specially since it means starting over.
>>>>>
>>>>>    - Changes up to and including _105 were directly a result of the
>>>>>    punchlist and QAH review.
>>>>>    - Changes after _105 have to do with some concurrency things
>>>>>    discovered in peer review (See my other email).
>>>>>    - I consider the concurrency issue from _106->_109 fixed and done,
>>>>>    no more churn should be coming from that
>>>>>    - I have one more task on my todo list, a documentation audit, no
>>>>>    code change expected, just POD.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not feel that either of these parts of churn should have been put
>>>>> off. These were not the results of me playing around, or with
>>>>> experimenting. These were things that review found that needed to be
>>>>> addressed before a stable release locked them into stone. There are plenty
>>>>> of other things in branches and pull requests (from bulk88, and some from
>>>>> me) that I refuse to merge before a stable release is made because they
>>>>> would introduce unnecessary churn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, about easing the burden of spot-checkers:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that the spot-checkers choosing to wait until an entire week
>>>>> (7 days) has gone by with no new dev releases, and no new commits to
>>>>> stream/master before running their checks is perfectly reasonable. I tend
>>>>> to address things within hours of finding out about them, so a week of no
>>>>> churn is a really good measurement to go with.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I hope to do my documentation audit today, and release _110 with
>>>>> ONLY doc changes tonight. If there is no churn for 1 full week the spot
>>>>> checkers can be sure I have nothing left to change and I consider it
>>>>> release-ready, and they can do their spot checks.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Chad
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Golden <[email protected]> Twitter/IRC: @xdg
>>>
>>
>>
>

From ba01045a2a2ab70e0f9a89ecd68812b7cc008da9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chad Granum <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:03:14 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] no need to weaken context hub reference

---
 lib/Test/Stream/Context.pm | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/Test/Stream/Context.pm b/lib/Test/Stream/Context.pm
index e6a8008..de8ae85 100644
--- a/lib/Test/Stream/Context.pm
+++ b/lib/Test/Stream/Context.pm
@@ -153,8 +153,6 @@ sub context {
         __PACKAGE__
     );
 
-    weaken($ctx->{+HUB});
-
     return $ctx if $CURRENT;
 
     $CURRENT = $ctx;
-- 
1.9.1