Moin, On Saturday 28 January 2006 15:54, David Golden wrote: > Adam Kennedy wrote: > > Likewise, if your module installs all the way from a vanilla > > installation and all it dependencies go on cleanly, then I think > > that's well and truly worthy of a point. > > > > Something like a clean_install metric. If there are any FAIL entries > > in CPAN Testers against the current version of your module, you lose > > a point. > > Those two are not the same. Leaving aside that Kwalitee tests don't > run code, the ability of a vanilla version of the latest production > release of perl to install a module and all of its dependencies with > the vanilla version of CPAN for that release could be an interesting > signal of quality. > > Knocking off points for fails, however, might be due to things that are > completely idiosyncratic. For example, anyone whose module depended on > a test module that used Test::Builder::Tester when Test::Builder > changed and broke it could get dinged. > > Does this really tell us anything about actual quality?
Yes :) The more things your module depends on, the higher the chances are that it breaks. Of course, determining what treshold is considered "good re-use of code" and what counts as "excessive dependency hell" is quite hard to decide. > What about if I list a prerequisite version of Perl and someone who > tries it under an older version causes a "FAIL" on CPAN Testers? Does > that tell us anything? It shouldn't count as fail. > There are so many special cases that I don't think the value derived > from such a metric will be worth the effort put into it. That might be well true. Best wishes, Tels -- Signed on Sat Jan 28 16:44:09 2006 with key 0x93B84C15. Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/ PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email. Like my code? Want to hire me to write some code for you? Send email!
pgpak2HJQGAWC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
