Re: did I say code freeze?

Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> Does that mean we'll have to ship another round of alpha?

I don't think so (see below).

> John, is there a test to go with this or is the coverage in the version 
> dist?  Any reason that this would break our fully-tested status?

There are tests in the version.pm package on CPAN:

> is $badv, '1.002003', "Deal with badly serialized versions from YAML";
> my $badv2 = bless { qv => 1, version => [1,2,3] }, "version";
> is $badv2, 'v1.2.3', "Deal with badly serialized versions from YAML ";

If a META.yml was generated with an older release of version.pm (pre 
5.10.0), the serialized form lacked an 'original' hash entry (which is 
what stringify defaults to).  However, between Andreas and myself, we 
were only able to identify 41 packages on the entirety of CPAN that had 
the issue (and some of those were from non-current package releases).

> Maybe I didn't say "code freeze" or just don't have the authority to 
> match the responsibility which I feel I would be assuming -- I don't 
> want to feel like I have to drop everything and triage the CPAN because 
> we missed something, so I take the smoke testing very seriously.  Or 
> maybe I'm just burnt out.  Anyway, I don't have any more time for 
> Module::Build at the moment.

I'm really sorry that I missed sending this; I had the patch sitting in 
my checkout and when I went to update my mirror, I discovered that I had 
never sent it upstream.  If it doesn't get added now, it can added for 
the next release; it is really a belt and braces issue more than 
anything else.  If anyone gets bitten by this, they can install the CPAN 
release of version.pm and it will get corrected.

John