I actually already fixed the documentation errors and agree that documentation is a virtue, it's just unfortunate that we have to force installs and as you mentioned it makes us look bad on CPAN. I thought I would throw out an alternative approach to documentation testing and avoid this sort slightly embarrassing cpan issue.
Either way, I'll try to be patient :) Cheers! Logan On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Peter Karman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/9/12 1:16 PM, Logan Bell wrote: > > BEGIN { >> *plan skip_all => "Author mode not enabled SKIPPING"* >> >> unless $ENV{AUTHOR_MODE}; >> if ( $]< 5.010 ) { >> plan( 'skip_all', "Old Pod::Checker is buggy" ); >> } >> else { >> plan('no_plan'); >> } >> } >> >> Would anyone have any objection with this? It seems fairly reasonable >> since >> it feels a bit heavy handed to run this check on every install. Also, how >> difficult would it be to get out a new release up to CPAN I'd be willing >> to >> volunteer to do this if I knew the correct process. >> >> > I agree that it's a terrible pity we've got low cpantesters scores because > of a broken pod checker. OTOH, good, working documentation is a virtue. So > I'm +0 on the idea of patching the doc tests. > > I'm -1 on releasing a new CPAN dist just for this fix. Once we graduate > (which is hopefully days away), getting a new release out should be much > easier (one less VOTE to take) and we could just do a real 0.3.1 release to > catch the doc fix and any others we've accrued. The benefit of keeping CPAN > releases in sync with official Apache releases outweighs the benefit of a > nicer cpantesters report. IMO. > > > > -- > Peter Karman . http://peknet.com/ . [email protected] >
