On Sunday 29 June 2008 02:28:54 Thomas Klausner wrote: > For example: > http://cpants.perl.org/kwalitee.html#no_cpants_errors > no_cpants_errors > Shortcoming: Some errors occured during CPANTS testing. They might > be caused by bugs in CPANTS or some strange features of this > distribution. See 'cpants' in the dist error view for more info. > Remedy: Please report the error(s) to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 'Shortcoming' should be extended to say: > "The goal of deducting a kwalitee point for 'no_cpants_errors' is to get > authors to report CPANTS bugs. As you might guess, testing 10.000+ > different dists is hard. There are lot of special cases. It's impossible > to figure out all those special cases in advance. 'no_cpants_errors' is > a way to outsource the discovery of special cases to module authors." > > or something like that...
I thought the goal of Kwalitee was to identify good free software, not to humiliate thousands of other authors of free software for not anticipating and working around your bugs. I didn't ask you to scan my distributions, and it's kind of a problem for me that you're willing to write publicly that their Kwalitee would be higher if I reported bugs in code I didn't write, don't use, and don't believe in -- especially if you're going to claim that Kwalitee metrics are useful in deciding whether to use my distributions. (If you don't claim that, then replace my objection with "Okay, so what's the point again?") Want to fix CPANTS and Kwalitee? It's simple: * get rid of the scoreboard * dump the harmful metrics (POD checking, etc) * separate all of the informational metrics from the genuinely useful metrics * report to authors when their uploads fail the useful metrics -- c
