On Jun 10, 2008, at 10:41 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
If you see no value in it, just ignore it. I'm sure it will do
wonders
for your blood pressure.
I guess that's my very point. Here's this entire subsystem that
exists to supposedly give information to authors and potential users
about the relative quality of the code, and yet the attitude that
comes out is "Eh, we like it, you don't have to like it."
Take a lesson from Perl::Critic and explain the reasoning behind the
policies.
Reposting from http://use.perl.org/comments.pl?sid=39922&threshold=-1&commentsort=1&mode=nested&cid=63283
:
Exactly. I look at http://cpants.perl.org/author/PETDANCE and it tells
me that many of my distributions fail certain checkboxes. So what?
Here it says WWW::Mechanize has no README. So what? Why do I as an
author care?
It says that Mech's META.yml doesn't conform to a known spec (At least
that's what I think the arcane code in the hover box tells me). So
what? Why do I as an author care?
My META.yml doesn't have a license in it. So what? Why do I as an
author care?
Perl::Critic::Bangs fails the test "proper_libs" which tells me " Move
your *.pm files in a directory named 'lib'. The directory structure
should look like 'lib/Your/Module.pm' for a module named
'Your::Module'." It should? Why do I as an author care if I don't put
my .pm file in the lib/ directory?
It's only overstating slightly to say that the entire CPANTS structure
seems to be built upon the premise of "These are things that should be
a certain way because I say so," whoever "I" may happen to be.
That's not to say that the things checked for aren't worthwhile, but
nothing says WHY they are worthwhile.
Further, and worse, it's presented as "You should just know this stuff
and appreciate us for telling you."
--
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
