On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 02:33:13PM -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
> I think that a lot of the tests could do with a shift in mindset. Instead of
> has_test_pod_coverage, maybe known_pod_coverage_tool, or even
> asserts_pod_covered. Make it clear that the test is for, "the author has
> attempted to let us know that he has documented everything," not "the author
> uses a specific tool to do this job."
I wonder if it is worth having some set of metrics that CPANTS trusts META.yml
for:
kwalitee:
pod_covered: 1
use_strict: 1
author_is_friendly: 1
(I threw strict in there on a whim because of Moose and other things that
import strict and warnings for you; I don't actually think it's in the same
category as pod_covered.)
Of course, this is easy to game, but it's not like the current system is
difficult to fool, and worrying too much about that leads to this question: is
the purpose of CPANTS to keep authors in line, or to point out ways to improve
their distributions?
hdp.
