Andy Lester schrieb:
At this point, CPANTS rules are getting into the realm of purely
self-pleasuring. If more than a dozen people outside of this small
enclave of people cares whether a module gets a 16 or 17, I'll be shocked.
Personally, I don't. But other people seem to.
2) If you find that Perl::Critic is missing rules that you would like to
see applied to your code, then write an extension. The framework is
extremely easy to use. I've written (stolen, really) a half dozen rules
and put out a distribution called Perl-Critic-Bangs. See
http://use.perl.org/~petdance/journal/30296
3) Those things that you put into CPANTS? The rules about module
installers and passing POD and what not? Write in your use.perl journal
about them. Write an article for the Perl Review about them. Get them
out where people can see them.
The Module::Install problem was announced on Alias' journal. Which is
more visible than my non-existent one.
4) Adopt a Perl Mongers group.
None around.
5) Write tests for Perl 5 core. Write tests for Parrot. Write tests
for Pugs.
6) Become a Parrot Cage Cleaner. Help me get the Parrot underpinnings
cleaned up so that it will scale as more and more developers join in.
http://use.perl.org/~petdance/journal/30146
And if you still have time or inclination to make CPANTS rules, have at it.
It took me no more than five minutes to adapt CPANTS for the M::I thing.
How long until I understand the test suite for overload? (If there is
such a thing.)
I've been bitten by the bug in M::I, so I have been trying to scratch
the itch. That's about it. I have submitted a couple of bug reports
against distributions that use broken installers, too. But in light of
the numbers, that's pointless.
If people using the most widespread Win32 Perl distribution can't
install 450 modules (without the chain of failing dependencies), that's
a qa nightmare, IMO.
Steffen
