On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Well put, Andy. [...] > > 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? CPANTS says that most of my modules have a META.yml that doesn't conform to a known spec. Yet I created the META.yml for all of these modules with 'perl Build dist' or 'make dist'. I know that META.yml is useful for machine-driven testing and distribution mechanisms.... but if Module::Build or ExtUtils::MakeMaker isn't making conformant META.yml files, I can't do much about that. [...] > 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." I concur on these observations -- I get the same impression that Andy does. -- Eric
