G'day Thomas,
Thomas Klausner wrote:
I've been very quite lately regarding CPANTS, mostly because I currently
have more interesting things to do (at the moment I'm in the lucky
situation that my day job is more fun than my non-paid open source
activities). This does not mean that I want to give up maintaing CPANTS.
Congratulations! ;)
would of course love it even more, if you [all of you, not Slave] would
turn some of the suggestions into code...
In other words, put our code where our mouths are. ;) For those of you who
want hacking the CPANTS game to be a game in itself, it now earns you ohloh
kudos too:
http://www.ohloh.net/projects/cpants
This could be quite easy for the various views etc. But I'm not sure how
to calculate a game score then. Do we end up with lots of different
games? But then, it's only the game (which still motivates a few
people..)
I've tossed out a few of these suggestions, so I guess I better start coming
up with answers. I'll start with what I think are the least controversial
things, and get into more risky territory as I go.
== Honours ==
One of the proposals was that some of the optional metrics like "packaged by
Debian" become "honours". These are things which are (more-or-less) out of
the author's control, but which we already have (disabled) tests for, and
which are useful indicators of quality. I suggest that completed honours
are shown automatically for any distribution that has them. Honours that a
distribution doesn't have just don't get shown.
== Optional Metrics ==
I've also proposed that things that the author does have control over, but
which they don't consider relevant to their distribution(s), can be switched
off. For the "optional" metrics these allegedly don't contribute to the
game score[1], and so the ability to disable them *should* be a non-issue;
you don't gain or lose game rankings by having them or not. Optional
metrics that an author doesn't want are simply not shown.
== Kwalitee Scores ==
Getting a little more controversial here, this means splitting the Kwalitee
score into two. Rather than showing an aggregate Kwalitee score for each
distribution, we'd show the "Core Kwalitee" (for non-optional metric) and
the "Bonus Kwalitee". If you're a gamer, you'll be turning on bonus
kwalitee metrics and trying to complete them to obtain the fabled Amulet of
CPANTS. If you're not a gamer, you'll turn them off, and that's that.
Whether that means we have *two* scoreboards I'll leave as an open question,
but I'd be willing to bet the general consensus is that we should.
Cheerio,
Paul
[1] However it appears that http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/hall_of_fame
has scores going up to 128, which I understand means it *does* includes
optional metrics. http://cpants.perl.org/dist/overview/IPC-System-Simple
has a score of 124, and fails only one optional metric (which it would have
passed if I had remembered 'make manifest').
--
Paul Fenwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://perltraining.com.au/
Director of Training | Ph: +61 3 9354 6001
Perl Training Australia | Fax: +61 3 9354 2681
