Hi! On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 10:59:04AM -0800, chromatic wrote:
> Why, then, is suggesting that people ship tests for POD errors and > coverage a good idea? I'm not 100% sure if it's a good idea, but it's an idea. But then, if I write some test (eg to check pod coverage), why should I not ship them? It's a good feeling to let others know that I took some extra effort to make sure everything works. Oh, and I really look forward to the time when I grok PPI and can add metrics like has_cuddled_elses and force /my/ view of how Perl should look like onto all of you. BWHAHAHAHA! OK, seriously. CPANTS currently isn't much more than a joke. It might have some nice benefits, but it is far from a real quality measurment tool. Never will it happen that the Perl community decides on one set of kwalitee metrics. That's why we're writing Perl, not Python. Currently, CPANTS tests for what is easy to test, i.e. distribution layout. Soon it will test more interesting stuff (eg. does prereq and used modules match up or are used modules missing from prereq). But feel free to ignore it... -- #!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.zsi.at for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$"-g&&print$_.$/}
