in reply to Re^3: No More Excuses For Not Testing Modules On Windows
in thread No More Excuses For Not Testing Modules On Windows

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 :-))
  • Comment on Re^4: No More Excuses For Not Testing Modules On Windows

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]

In Section Perl News