# from Christopher H. Laco
# on Monday 30 July 2007 11:14 am:
>I don't agree. What runs when I do 'make test' is up to me, and if I
>want to litter it up with 'author' tests, then that's my business;
> right or wrong. Don't like it, then don't use my modules. (I still
> think all author tests should not run by default...)
This is not about what happens when *you* do `make test`, it's about
what happens when the end-user does `make test`.
The default module-starter setup creates this t/pod.t
#!perl -T
use Test::More;
eval "use Test::Pod 1.14";
plan skip_all => "Test::Pod 1.14 required for testing POD" if $@;
all_pod_files_ok();
If *you* don't have Test::Pod, and *I* do, *I* cannot install your
module if the pod doesn't pass.
This could possibly fail as part of a dependency of a dependency of a
dependency.
This makes Perl harder to use, which is bad.
Thus, I posit that the quality of the module is generally lower if
'boilerplate.t', 'pod-coverage.t', and 'pod.t' *exist*.
Kwalitee is supposed to be an approximation of quality, not the opposite
of it.
--Eric
--
If the collapse of the Berlin Wall had taught us anything, it was that
socialism alone was not a sustainable economic model.
--Robert Young
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
