On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:13 PM, imacat <ima...@mail.imacat.idv.tw> wrote:
>> Proposition:
>> + Provide an easy way to execute CPAN::Reporter::Smoker, limited
>> just to distributions that have any version installed on the system
>> (instead of all of CPAN).
>
> I still do not see at all.
>
> 1. How many smokers have installed my module? Only one, that is,
> I. How many smokers have installed Mac::iTune? No one.
For your module, and Mac::iTune, there won't be an added benefit. But
there will be for more commonly installed modules. Which, of course,
are already tested, but this could reach additional platforms/perls --
that potentially could be a bigger benefit than additional modules.
> 2. With this new system you suggested, I will only get my own
> reports, which is nearly useless. And other authors will get no reports
> at all.
True, it's not reaching all of CPAN, but OTOH it's not zero modules
either -- it's whatever's on your system .. which i'm guessing is
200-500 distros.
> 3. I will stop running smoke tests, since when I upgrade the
> modules weekly, the reports will be sent anyway. If I will not be
> sending reports other than the above, running smoke tests is a
> duplicated work and CPU waste which could be saved.
Here's where are lines of thought split i think ..
You wouldn't need to (and shouldn't) stop running smoke tests if your
running this new system (C::R::S::Safer) .. There's two cases here:
a) The system (read: platform/perl) you're smoking on is the same as
where you're running C::R::S::Safer.
+ In this case, i'd say either don't run C::R::S::Safer, or make
sure the reports-send.db file is shared between the C::R::S::Safer
runs and the C::R::S smoke runs. That way there's no wasted
resources.
b) The platform/perl is different. This situation is what i'm
targeting .. where you're smoking on system A, but also have system
B, which full smoking is unsafe and/or inappropriate on. Running
C::R::S::Safer on system B at least gets some partial smoke
coverage/reports, whereas without it there wouldn't be any.
Basically, it's not proposed to replace smoke testing -- just to be
used where smoke testing can't (or shouldn't) be done.
Your points 4. & 5. and "demolish the whole CPAN testers system"
followed from the assumption that running this would mean ceasing
smoke testing, so i'll skip those.
Take my actual setups for an example ... I have:
* a $work laptop (winXP, 5.10)
* a home desktop (win2K, 5.8.8)
* a spare laptop (no hard drive)
* hosting account (linux, i686, 5.8.8)
* $work dev env (linux, 5.6.1)
On the spare laptop, i'm booting a knoppix livecd and smoking from
there (linux, i486, 5.8.8).
BUT, the other 4 systems w/unique platforms/perls I can't run smoke
testing on (for both safety and resources reasons).
BUT, i am willing to run C::R::S::Safer, to ensure that i've
contributed reports for everything that i have installed.
So this is where I see it only creating additional testers reports.
Basically, i envision the following levels of test report contribution:
a) Install CPAN::Reporter, and send reports for any module that gets
installed from that point on.
b) Install CPAN::Reporter::Smoker::Safer, and run it to submit
reports for all the distros you "trust" (read: have installed). And
run it again in the future to test any newer versions of those
distros, w/o actually installing them.
c) Install & run CPAN::Reporter::Smoker (or other smoker), and
submit reports for everything. --> BUT, this takes an isolated &
dedicated environment.
And it's key to note that these 3 are not mutually exclusive .. can do
(c) on one system, and (a) and/or (b) on others (as in my setup
described above).
> In either way, I may have to restart my English class.
don't waste the time or money :) -- w/o your mention of it and the .tw
email, I would have assumed the above was written by a native english
speaker.
This is a good thread -- parts of it will definitely make their way
into the C::R::S::Safer documentation.
--david
