On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:00:17PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote: > > We should be very wary of stipulating HOW authors have to achieve their > > quality. Saying you can only check your POD in one specific way goes to > > far IMO. > That's a good point. > OTOH, I know of several people who added Pod::Coverage to their test suites > (and hopefully found some undocumented methods...) because of this metric. > Thus one goal (raising the overall quality (!) of CPAN) is reached.
Speaking only for myself, I found that in this case it served to lower the kwalitee of my CPAN modules. I needed to make a new release of one of them, and so I decided to check out what the latest kwalitee checks were so I could make sure I'd everything covered. However, when I discovered these two checks, I decided not to bother any more. I already have things like this (and more besides) built into my whole module development environment, but they don't work the way CPANTS currently wants. I don't really want to change that environment, which I've spent years tweaking to the way I like it, so instead I'll just take the path of least resistance and decide to ignore CPANTS instead. I used to think CPANTS was a great idea. But if it's going to be based on HOW you do things, rather than whether you do things, I think it'll ultimately fail. Tony