Newsgroups: perl.qa
Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.perl.org
Return-Path: <mpet...@plusthree.com>
Mailing-List: contact perl-qa-h...@perl.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list perl...@perl.org
Received: (qmail 5900 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2007 22:18:49 -0000
Received: from x1a.develooper.com (HELO x1.develooper.com) (216.52.237.111)
  by lists.develooper.com with SMTP; 19 Nov 2007 22:18:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 16568 invoked by uid 225); 19 Nov 2007 22:18:48 -0000
Delivered-To: perl...@perl.org
Received: (qmail 16562 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2007 22:18:48 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=8.0
	tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: la.mx.develooper.com
Received: from mail.plusthree.com (HELO mail.plusthree.com) (70.42.42.197)
    by la.mx.develooper.com (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:18:40 -0800
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (c-69-140-90-245.hsd1.md.comcast.net [69.140.90.245])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by mail.plusthree.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAJMDUcg009693
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:13:30 -0500
Message-ID: <47420B7E.8020903@plusthree.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:17:34 -0500
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Rockway <j...@jrock.us>
CC: perl...@perl.org
Subject: Re: Deferred Plans
References: <729237.83345.qm@web60811.mail.yahoo.com>	 <373AE811-37BA-4571-ADB1-BF6D62F76C01@hexten.net> <1195510220.3833.21.camel@bar.jrock.us>
In-Reply-To: <1195510220.3833.21.camel@bar.jrock.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: n...@nntp.perl.org
From: mpet...@plusthree.com (Michael Peters)

Jonathan Rockway wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 13:06 +0000, Andy Armstrong wrote:
>> I think we really need to reach a decision on
>>
>> http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/Test_Groups versus
>> http://testanything.org/wiki/index.php/Test_Blocks
> 
> It looks like the con on both of these proposals is lack of backcompat.

Backcompat shouldn't be a problem now that we have T::H 3. That was one of the
goals. TAP is now a versioned protocol and anything emitting a specific version
of TAP needs to declare the version. Older TAP processors were supposed to
ignore anything they didn't understand so none of these should really be a problem.

-- 
Michael Peters
Developer
Plus Three, LP