It seems to me as if the patch caused some tests to fail (at least according to the email chain). Perhaps addressing the cause of those test failures within the patch would help to move this along / at all?
Update: unintentionally snarky.
| [reply] |
Have you tried applying the patch and running the tests? Worked for me the last time I tried it so I suspect that the post to which your refering is incorrect
| [reply] |
So have you addressed the responder? That user is the one that had failures in the test. Working on one system (or even one set of systems) does not mean that it is a good patch. That is the reason for cpantesters and the like.
My point is this: the documentation that you have provided does not (IMO) justify taking over the distribution from the original author. Taking over the distribution is a very large mallet when a finishing hammer may be all that is necessary. A single instance of a patch not being applied is not (again, IMO) justification for taking over a distribution.
However, I am not saying that the module should not be taken over. Just that the information you have provided does not justify it, and that there may be a better, less confrontational way of addressing it. Perhaps you have already attempted one or more other methods, but just not demonstrated that you have.
| [reply] |
Hi,
sorry for my slow responses.. (I am the module author).
I'm going to get your patch into the module. If you would like to adopt the module, I'll give it to you, as I am not currently working on projects that use Catalyst.
| [reply] |
(That anonymous post was by me)
pjfl, could you confirm that CPLH 0.07_01 works for you?
Update: Uploaded 0.08 with the dependencies fixed. Thank you for your help.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
