On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And further still: the metric is based on finding the use of the > "Test::Pod" and "Test::Pod::Coverage" modules, which provides zero room > for improvement even if you want to engage in the questionable practice > of duplicating information by including a couple of "blah.t" files in > every distribution.
wow, I am glad as I am not the author of those metrics so I don't need to defend them but saying that it "provides zero room for improvement" is a bit strong. First of all the CPANTS metrics are not some g-d given rules that if you break them your modules will be outcasts and noone will ever find them. I do hope the metrics will be taken in account when comparing between two "competing" solutions but then these are still only 2 out of over 40 metrics. Second, I sincerely hope that if you come up with another set of Test::MyPod and Test::Pod::MyCoverage and notify Thomas Klausner about it then he will consider including them as optional alternatives when checking for the given kwalitee metrics. With that said I have no idea how could CPANTS check that you lived up your promise and ran both `./Build testpod` `./Build testpodcoverage` with success, prior to release. I am not sure it even should as currently it only checks if Test::Pod is used in one of the tests files and not even if that test is really executable. I think CPANTS - in this case - is more of a tool that tries to draw attention of the CPAN authors to the idea of tesing their Pod than a rule to enforce the use. So maybe they should be moved to be optional or a more fine grained weighting system should be already implemented. It certainly should say so in the explanation. Gabor
