On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 10:18:04AM +0200, nadim khemir wrote: > > The all-on or all-off solution is not good. Neither is the centralized > solution. Having a central web page, database, ... is also going to be more > work for you and it will need to be maintained
I've been doing it for the past 2-3 years with the stats site, and Leon has been the primary maintainer of the reports for the last 6 years. For the short term I will be the maintainer of both, but there will be more admins in the future. So essentially it has been centralized for several years :) The bit that we are moving to be under cemtralized control is how we contact authors via email. Currently that's done by the individual testers. Moving to a central system means we can introduce better filters to only alert on FAIL with the first instance of platform/perl for a given distribution, instead of all instances, or to only alert when your distributions are being tested on a specific platform. There will probably be many more ideas in time for filters, but to begin with it'll be just a case of stopping testers sending those emails, and generating collated mails instead of flooding authors. It makes more sense to have a central server, as it means all the filtering, mailing, etc can be done on the raw data. However, there is nothing stopping anyone setting up a competing service (e.g. Adam Kennedy's PITA project), using the same or similar infrastructure, with a different aim. > Why not let authors decide which modules they want to get smoked? > Why not let authors decide which platform they want their modules smoked on? This has been discussed a few times, without any clear suitable solution. Personally I feel all modules should be smoked, if possible, but authors should be able to decide whether they want to hear about it. There are already some distributions that implement platform checks and automated smoker checks, so that they can stop the tests. > If you still opt for the centralized control, will it be possible to install > a > private smoke environment and a private centralized control? It depends what your aim is. If you are setting something up to be used for your own modules, such as the PITA project, then yes. If you were going to setup an alternative cpan-testers, then I'm not sure what that would achieve. You could still do it, but it might make more sense to work with the current cpan-testers developers to improve the current setup (or the future one). Cheers, Barbie. -- Birmingham Perl Mongers <http://birmingham.pm.org> Memoirs Of A Roadie <http://barbie.missbarbell.co.uk>
