On 12 Dec 2012, at 18:35, Abigail <abig...@abigail.be> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:57:39AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote: >> On 12/12/2012 07:12 AM, Leon Brocard wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 02:29:24AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote: >>>> i can't say much about this but you have to look at the code here. >>>> >>>> https://metacpan.org/author/PERLOOK/ >>> >>> I congratulate Alexej on joining the CPAN authors club. Instead of making >>> fun >>> of him on a mailing list why not engage with him and help him improve? >> >> look at his early rt ticket replies. and i did engage him and admonish >> his attitude. his reply was more normal but he still thinks his code is >> doing something useful and even correct. i will point him in better >> directions later today. >> >> but he should be learning basic perl on his own box and wait for >> publishing until he has something to show. what is up there is very >> broken ('#' is false in his world) and he doesn't know it. > > > The power of CPAN is that it is available to *ALL*. > > Noone is forcing you to use what's there. If you think it's crappy, don't > use it. If it pisses you off people prefer to use a module that you think > is crappy, write something better. After all, most people just want to > fix a problem, and they don't (usually rightly) how it's solved. > > If only code that is approved by a cabal is allowed on CPAN, it will > quickly become something else then it's now.
Do we still have automated kwalitee on CPAN? Would hurling a PBP test at the whole of CPAN to get a metric be of any benefit?