|
From: gnome-perl (bugzilla.gnome.org) <bug...@bu...> - 2006-11-24 21:07:48
|
Do not reply to this via email (we are currently unable to handle email responses and they get discarded). You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D378662 gnome-perl | Gtk2 | Ver: unspecified ------- Comment #9 from Behdad Esfahbod 2006-11-24 21:07 UTC ------- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > So, maybe you can look at the test to see what it's doing? > >=20 >=20 > Symmetrically, should I suggest you to look into the code of my > AppsFromScratch while I'm still alive and well in case of problems > with my code ? >=20 > I think it's best when developers themselves look into their code > - ultimately we all benefit. >=20 > For example, if I start looking into the failing test, I won't be able > to spend the time on developing and debugging my code. >=20 > I think each of us is more efficient with his/her own code than with > somebody else's, so we all will be more productive dealing as much as > possible with our own code. Right, but it's not Pango at all. I did take a second look at my ChangeL= og between 1.14.7 and 1.14.8 and found no reason whatsoever to break a test.= I would have been more than happy to look at the code if it was in gtk+. B= ut with the Perl bindings, that's not as easy as you think. I don't know Pe= rl, never looked at our Perl bindings, and have no idea about AppsFromScratch= ...=20 You are observing the failure, and you can pinpoint it to a single line t= hat is causing the change fairly easily, and copy it in the bug. FWIW, the Make= files you attached are not really helpful. It may be if you attach the test ca= se that is failing, or give a URL to it. --=20 Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=3Demail |