Perl 6 - the future is here, just unevenly distributed

IRC log for #pr-challenge, 2015-04-07

| Channels | #pr-challenge index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
00:16 foobar7 joined #pr-challenge
00:36 vroom joined #pr-challenge
00:54 athos joined #pr-challenge
01:05 athos joined #pr-challenge
01:06 athos joined #pr-challenge
01:11 vroom joined #pr-challenge
01:17 viviparous joined #pr-challenge
01:18 viviparous Hi PRC people.
01:21 viviparous Looking for experienced opinions about using Universal::ISA, which perlcritic does not like.
01:24 bentglasstube well if perlcritic doesn't like it…
01:24 kid51 http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F204316%2Fddg%23204368
01:25 vroom joined #pr-challenge
01:25 bentglasstube honestly the description of UNIVERSAL::isa even says not to use it
01:28 viviparous So it is the "modern" consensus then that UNIVERSAL::isa is bad and the "eval" syntax mentioned by perlcritic is the right fix?
01:30 viviparous Am happy to fix as perlcritic directs, but just want to be sure that I'm doing a good thing. (Not everything perlcritic says is fully supported by coders.)
01:35 athos joined #pr-challenge
01:36 rvandam joined #pr-challenge
01:40 vroom joined #pr-challenge
01:49 genehack way to hang around for consensus, there, viviparous
01:49 G_SabinoMullane I don't know about "bad", perhaps "use with extreme caution" and "when in doubt, don't use this"
01:51 athos joined #pr-challenge
01:53 frederico joined #pr-challenge
01:55 gryphon joined #pr-challenge
02:12 itcharlie joined #pr-challenge
02:16 athos joined #pr-challenge
03:00 athos joined #pr-challenge
03:03 athos joined #pr-challenge
03:09 athos joined #pr-challenge
03:23 jamessan genehack: didn't you know IRC is instantaneous? No need to stick around
03:23 genehack iknorite
03:47 athos joined #pr-challenge
04:09 itcharlie left #pr-challenge
04:50 athos joined #pr-challenge
06:52 Lee hurrah, one of my PRC PRs has been merged
07:56 neilb joined #pr-challenge
07:57 dolmen joined #pr-challenge
08:44 athos joined #pr-challenge
09:05 frederico joined #pr-challenge
11:02 jevin joined #pr-challenge
11:20 kid51 joined #pr-challenge
11:21 fuzzix joined #pr-challenge
11:32 vroom joined #pr-challenge
13:08 jevin joined #pr-challenge
13:08 athos joined #pr-challenge
13:09 vroom joined #pr-challenge
13:10 jevin_ joined #pr-challenge
13:16 jevin joined #pr-challenge
13:23 jevin joined #pr-challenge
13:29 fredericop joined #pr-challenge
13:32 hernan604 joined #pr-challenge
13:34 fuzzix joined #pr-challenge
13:36 Lee joined #pr-challenge
13:49 kanashiro joined #pr-challenge
13:51 gryphon joined #pr-challenge
14:08 tinypig joined #pr-challenge
14:16 jevin joined #pr-challenge
14:22 dolmen neilb: a closed PR does not mean it is rejected
14:23 dolmen neilb: the maintainer may have integrated the commit, but not using the GitHub workflow
14:23 dolmen neilb: example: https://github.com/rjbs/Email-Send/pull/4
14:24 dolmen so, showing the pull request in red if it is marked "closed" by Github does not really reflects the situation
14:24 dolmen ... in the monthly report
14:26 dolmen of course, checking if a commit has been integrated in the history is much more work :(
14:28 dolmen maybe we could ask the maintainers to use a label on those PR: "cpanpr:merged"
14:31 dolmen or use a comment with a special format: "@CPAN-PRC: merged" (with a check of who is submitting the comment)
14:37 rvandam joined #pr-challenge
14:42 punter joined #pr-challenge
15:11 kanashiro joined #pr-challenge
15:13 absolut_todd joined #pr-challenge
15:27 jevin joined #pr-challenge
16:44 punter joined #pr-challenge
16:57 rvandam joined #pr-challenge
17:02 deven joined #pr-challenge
17:15 choroba joined #pr-challenge
17:31 jb360 joined #pr-challenge
17:32 jevin joined #pr-challenge
17:32 absolut_todd joined #pr-challenge
17:39 rvandam joined #pr-challenge
18:32 oalders dolmen is correct. from my working with merge data, i can say there are lots of cases where a PR is not in a merged state, but the work has been integrated into the main branch
18:58 PerlJam win 13
18:59 PerlJam (apparently I'm "lose 13" instead ;)
18:59 thrig not for another few years, they're only on 10
19:00 PerlJam that's a pun I'm not comfortable with being a unixy person
19:00 PerlJam :)
19:00 genehack PerlJam: draw 13
19:00 jb360 joined #pr-challenge
19:10 tinypig left #pr-challenge
19:24 punter joined #pr-challenge
20:19 gansh joined #pr-challenge
21:21 punter joined #pr-challenge
21:33 gansh joined #pr-challenge
22:00 lagrasta Just sent my first PR for my April assignment! Hoping to do more, but at least I know I’ve got one in.
22:15 choroba I still have to do some research, but some failures might be related to the changes in Test::Builder... http://www.cpantesters.org/distro/A/AnyEvent-ForkManager.html
22:15 choroba (talking about my April assignment)
22:20 choroba or maybe not, that's just two reports
22:21 kid51 joined #pr-challenge
22:52 itcharlie joined #pr-challenge
23:21 jb360 joined #pr-challenge
23:24 tinypig joined #pr-challenge
23:36 kid51_ joined #pr-challenge
23:45 veryrusty joined #pr-challenge
23:50 jamessan oalders: Wouldn't git-cherry help detect some of those cases?

| Channels | #pr-challenge index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary