Re: [Module::Build] [RFC] author tests

[Eric W. <scr...@gm...>]

# from Tyler MacDonald
# on Thursday 02 February 2006 10:01 am:

>Whatever convention you're using, if these tests are only going to
>work on your system, then they definately shouldn't be in "t". 

There is a good case for that, particularly in reverse-compatibility.

> since there's absolutely no value in these types of tests for anybody
> else except the module author, 

Module hackers, if given the chance to run these tests (and encouraged 
to do so by the HACKING file), could potentially save the author a lot 
of trouble in accepting patches.

> there's no real point in having a 
> convention, just stick 'em anywhere that the make/buildfiles will
> ignore them.

No.  There is lots of real point in having a convention.  I would much 
rather that my tools be built and maintained by someone else.  If such 
conventions are not worthwhile, we should get rid of ./Build dist 
because each author might want to write that themselves.

I might be particular, but accepting someone else's convention (assuming 
that it works well enough) allows me to be lazy, which trumps 
particular by a factor of about 3 (might be pi.)

--Eric
-- 
Consumers want choice, consumers want openness.
--Rob Glaser
---------------------------------------------------
    http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------