* Neil Bowers <neil.bow...@cogendo.com> [2016-03-24 22:05]: > > Plack::Middleware::Rewrite is used by a ton of people and klaxons > > certainly ought to blare if I ever opened up that namespace. The > > number of on-CPAN dependents is just 3 though. > > The key word in what I said was *any*. I think even 3 dependents > should klaxon.
I am still uncomfortable with making the leap from “has no dependents on CPAN” to “has no dependents” due to “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. I understand the desire to distinguish between benign cases and problems but I don’t know that we have any way to do that. :-/ I wonder what the volume in one case vs the other is. Maybe the attempt to distinguish the cases is premature optimisation that can be skipped? (Hopefully so, but I don’t know.) > Plus having any favourites on CPAN should also prompt the klaxon as > well: I use favourites as a proxy for “has dependents” in both the > adoption list and weighting dists for the PRC, and it seems to work. > > I still think we need a service where you can say “I’m using this > dist”. I think I’ll add that feature to the dashboard, which I’ll be > working on at the QAH. Those are, separately, good ideas. But they too are merely optional signals, so they can increase confidence that something is used but they are of no help in proving that it isn’t. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
