* David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-06 05:40]: > I have to second this. There really shouldn't be separate > "conforms to 1.0" and "conforms to 1.2" metrics and so on. > What happens as the spec evolves? Unless the spec is broken, > encouraging specific "latest spec compliant" is just churn and > Kwalitee breaks if there's ever a change that isn't backwards > compatible. The test should be whether the META.yml is > "well-formed" -- meaning that it's valid according to the spec > that it declares (or 1.0 otherwise).
Well, there’s the issue that some META.yml spec versions might be (considered) broken, in which case it might make sense to have the metric check conformance to one of the known good spec versions. Much like the previously discussed “broken installer” metric. But yeah, other than that, I agree, the metric should check that META.yml conforms to the spec it says it conforms to, and that a metric that checks for conformance to the latest version should be a bonus, if it exists at all. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
