Hi! On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:56:40AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
> At the moment the focus seems very much on packaging. That's fine, but > it does mean that "correctly" packaged junk looks pretty good. True, but most junk /is/ packaged badly. At its much easier to check for bad packages than for bad content. See this for Schwerns great Ashtray/Lung Cancer Methapher: http://magnonel.guild.net/~schwern/talks/CPANTS/full_slides/slide006.html > In time, > some more metrics would be good. definitly! > Some suggestions: > > - How do the CPAN testers reports look? > - What does cpanratings think? > - Some analysis of the RT action. > - Number of releases, perhaps in relation to the size of the code. > More releases expected for larger code. all planned to some extend or the other... > - Static analysis. Hard, but planned. > - Test coverage. Impossibly, because CPANTS does not run code. -- #!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.zsi.at for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$"-g&&print$_.$/}
