On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:49:49AM -0400, mrbbking wrote: > >1) Is such a feature worth implementing? > Yes, indeed!
Okay. :-) *moves priority +1* > >2) Should it be a switch of cpansmoke, or comes by default, or as > >an additional > > option in "Send test results [Y/n]?"? > My first choice is to make it a default, but making it an option > would be just fine as well. The difference would be in day-to-day reporters (i.e. those who reports module test results as they installed them); if it's default, they it'll be included in every report sent out by CPANPLUS. Otherwise only dedicated cpansmokers can turn it on. I also incline to make it a default, if only the restrict the feeping creaturism in cpansmoke's switches. :-) > The more info an author gets about failures, the more able that > author will be to address them. Well said. > >3) Should we limit the size of report it generates? > Yes, but I'm not sure what a good size limit would be... If a > report exceeds the limit, I suggest truncating it, and appending a > note saying it was truncated -- e.g. "Test output truncated by > CPANPLUS. Contact the author of this message for more detail, if > needed." Then send the output that came before the limit was reached. So... Limit it at 100 lines total? > Keep it up! This is great... =) # happy /Autrijus/
msg34501/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
