Selon David Coppit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I had a similar rant about cpan-testers on module-authors in September. It > seems like the automated reporting is so easy, the testers don't stop to > determine whether *they* are the source of the problem. (I thought it was > fully automated by a testing farm somewhere, based on the brain-dead > submissions I was getting.) Perhaps we need a "Testing HOWTO" that the > testers have to read before we let them submit reports.
In fact, there are already such documents: <http://search.cpan.org/~autrijus/CPANPLUS-0.049/lib/CPANPLUS/TesterGuide.pod> <http://search.cpan.org/~autrijus/CPANPLUS-0.049/lib/CPANPLUS/FAQ.pod> > The frustrating thing is that the failure reports on CPAN indicate that a > module is buggy when it's not. As a result, modules that depend on > external modules, libraries, or programs tend to get unfairly "graded". It > hurts the reputation of the author. (In my case, such as it is. :) Personnally, I run CPANPLUS by hand and only send reports when I think the author should know, but not in case of bad Perl version or missing external library. Jos Boumans is currently working on CPANPLUS 0.050 which is correcting several issues that 0.049 had (like not understanding "no" to some questions). Also, the default is set to "no" in case of FAIL to avoid sending false reports. cpansmoke is being re-added for 0.050_04. What is missing now is people using/testing CPANPLUS 0.50_xx to help Jos find and crush bugs. -- S�bastien Aperghis-Tramoni Close the world, txEn eht nepO.
