I have to agree with that, albeit probably less angry about it. :) On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Karen Etheridge <p...@froods.org> wrote:
> > I think “has a META.yml or META.json” is worth keeping in > > I'm surprised this one is being discussed at all. IMO, not having a META > file should disqualify the distribution from being considered at all. At > Berlin last year we talked about making it mandatory, and held off "for > now" so the outliers could be fixed. Having META should be non-negotiable > for a well-formed CPAN distribution. > > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Neil Bowers <neil.bow...@cogendo.com> > wrote: > >> > CPANdeps (http://deps.cpantesters.org) has been providing useful >> > information on water quality. It might be enough to make a better or >> > opinionated presentation of it for the upriver authors. IMHO META >> > files and min version specification depends more on when a >> > distribution is released and don't well fit for water quality metrics. >> >> I’m not convinced on min version either, but am leaning towards including >> it, if we can come up with a definition that’s practical and useful. >> >> I think “has a META.yml or META.json” is worth keeping in, as there are a >> number of benefits to having one, and I suspect there’s at least some >> correlation between dists that don’t have a META file and dists that >> haven’t listed all prereqs (eg in the Makefile.PL). >> >> That said, I’m really just experimenting here, trying to find things that >> are useful indicators for whether a dist is good to rely on. >> >> Neil >> >> >
