NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

use Perl

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

"Was this review helpful to you?" Well, no. (Score:3, Insightful)

by bart (450) <bart.lateur@pandora.be> on 2006.09.08 11:09 (#49903) Journal

The good news is that 0 out of 8 people (no doubt all people that read your post in your journal) found his "review" helpful. I don't know what consequence this may have. Will his vote count less than other people's votes? May it eventually be deleted?

Reply to This
You think that RT was strange... (Score:1)

by jk2addict (4946)

I've seen it happen too...

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/perl-modperl/200512.mbox/%3C4395EF1A.60 10802@chrislaco.com%3E [apache.org]
Well then... (Score:1)

by sigzero (5768)

Can we spam him? >: )
net.kook? (Score:2)

by autarch (914)

I seem to recall that David Muir Sharnoff is already a reasonably well known net.kook. His Time-modules distro is some sort of weird fork of Graham Barr's TimeDate distro, and I sort of remember that there was some contention about that.

I'd take his silliness with a big grain of salt.
- Re: (Score:1)
  
  by uri (2673)
  
  and i took over his file::slurp module which had a version number based on the date which is why it is now numbered 9999.12 with the .12 being the real version. also his original list slurp test was broken (which i fixed). finally he bitched at me for 'changing' the behavior of read_file which his original module never specified in the docs, his old code didn't do what he said it did and it had no test for it. my change added flexibity to the api, is documented and tested. and the change was easy to work ar
ticket status (Score:1)

by link (3402)

I would probably have went for stalled instead of rejected but then I can never quite get the hang of bug trackers.
- Stalled is indeed probably better (Score:1)
  
  by Alias (5735)
  
  Actually, I think you'd probably be right.
  
  You probably shouldn't reject a bug just because you can't replicate it (where I use "can't" in the sense of "What Matt said").
  
  If you acknowledge that the bug exists, it's simply stalled because you can't do anything to fix it.
oh, this brings back memories... (Score:2)

by jhi (318)

http://use.perl.org/~jhi/journal/9711 [perl.org]
small example - statements not finalized correctly (Score:1)

by link (3402)

I have added a small example to the rt to illustrate the bug. It looks like disconnecting with statements still in scope causes the disconnect to leak a file handle.