Hi!
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:41:58AM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
> - Having POD
> - Not having the POD that h2xs puts in
I wonder how many dists are authored by R.U. Thor :-)
> - Having a README
thats allready covered.
> BTW, I tend to think that modules that require lots of other things
> deserve lower kwalitee...
Why?
> and that perhaps in addition to kwalitee we
> should attempt to track importance.
Hmm, I was thinking of importance beeing a part of Kwalitee. It seems to
make sense, but I think it will be to complicated now. Maybe later?
> You can get importance for:
> - being listed as a (prereq|recommendation|build_prereq) for something
> else (in relation to the importance of that thing)
> - having lots of CPAN testers reports
> - having lots of RT activity
> - having lots of rating votes
> - having good rating votes
> (The two above can probably be simplified by taking the sum of all
> rating votes.)
> - Being the most recent version of the dist in question
> - Not being a devel (IE with-underscore) version.
BTW, it should be possible to use the raw data to calculate importance. So
maybe all that's needed is a script that does some SQL munging...
> BTW, all modules should probably be considered to depend on perl itself,
> no matter what the metadata we have says -- otherwise perl gets an
> unfairly low importance.
CPANTS doesn't test Perl itself.
> BTW, what's $report->{files}{ninja}?
see here:
http://use.perl.org/comments.pl?sid=21487&op=&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&tid=34&pid=32773#32817
> A standalone tester would be very nice -- so authors can test their
> kwalitee before they upload, rather then after.
Thats also planned. Something like 'lint' for dists.
> There's a couple of misspelled fields in the kwalitee report.
Which ones?
--
#!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.zsi.at
for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$"-g&&print$_.$/}
