Re^2: No More Excuses For Not Testing Modules On Windows

Hmmm, if it wasn't for the OP, I, for one, wouldn't have known about the resource - having not, AFAIR, heard of the website </ignorance>

Agreed, the user thang does seem strange, but hey, anything that has the capability, however remote, of making the resource usable shouldn't, IMO, be discounted out-of-hand.

Suffice it to say, if I ever manage to get the/my modules in a fit enough state, I shall (be attempting to) use the resource as appropriate.

A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))

Comment on Re^2: No More Excuses For Not Testing Modules On Windows

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: No More Excuses For Not Testing Modules On Windows by JavaFan (Canon) on Jul 21, 2009 at 10:08 UTC
Agreed, the user thang does seem strange, but hey, anything that has the capability, however remote, of making the resource usable shouldn't, IMO, be discounted out-of-hand. This is exactly the naive black-and-white thinking I'm fighting against. The OP takes the news that there's a Windows testing environment and makes it a "no more excuses" posting. I tried to temper that black-and-white thinking, and you suggest that I "discount it out-of-hand". Come on people. If you want to be taken seriously, recognize there's a lot between white and black. I didn't discount Adams work; in fact, I praised him for that in my post. I just pointed out that the existence of the service won't mean everyone is going to jump through the hoops and test their modules using the service. Some will, some won't.	[reply]
Re^4: No More Excuses For Not Testing Modules On Windows by Bloodnok (Vicar) on Jul 21, 2009 at 10:31 UTC
I know you praised him [Adam] for his work - I read and agreed with, it. The rest of your post suggested, to me, that you have, or intend to, discount the resource resulting from Adams' hard work. Maybe ~~less~~ fewer sensitivities would be inflamed if the OP were to be re-titled along the lines of "One less excuse" (c/w "No more excuses") - that would bring the topic into the realms of LPF (Logic of Partial Functions aka 3 valued logic). thus removing the binary black/white nature, wouldn't it ? Update: Amendment for better grammar. A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))	[reply]
Re^5: No More Excuses For Not Testing Modules On Windows by JavaFan (Canon) on Jul 21, 2009 at 10:54 UTC
The rest of your post suggested, to me, that you have, or intend to, discount the resource resulting from Adams' hard work. No, I never discounted it, and certainly not "out-of-hand". You may distill from my post that I probably won't use the resource - I've no intention to spend time learning how Windows works and not getting paid for it. I wouldn't assume any Windows person learning Unix if someone made a series of Unix platforms available for testing (I wish someone would - I'd certainly spend time testing modules on platforms I don't have otherwise access to, and I can work with). But that's not dismissing "out-of-hand". The only thing I tried to dismiss was the "no more excuses" - not the service. Maybe less sensitivities would be inflamed if the OP were to be re-titled along the lines of "One less excuse" If titled that way from the beginning, there wouldn't have been a reason for me to respond. But retitling it now would make the resulting discussing look strange, wouldn't it?	[reply]