chromatic wrote: > On Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:01:44 David Golden wrote: > >>> You encourage what you measure, >> In theory, yes. In practice, that hasn't been the experience to date. > >> Testers over 70K: >> >> 1 587018 Chris Williams (BINGOS) >> 2 318527 Andreas J. König (ANDK) >> 3 188392 David Golden (DAGOLDEN) >> 4 151457 David Cantrell (DCANTRELL) >> 5 148505 Slaven Rezić (SREZIC) >> 6 73425 Jost Krieger (JOST) >> 7 73104 Yi Ma Mao (IMACAT) > >> Do you think this group couldn't game the stats if all they wanted was >> a high score? Being snide about peoples volunteer efforts isn't >> particularly constructive. > > Someone in that top seven has sent plenty of useless reports. ("Hi, I'm from > CPAN Testers! I have my client configured not to install required > dependencies! Your distribution doesn't work! Hope that helps!") > >> If you think that people should be rewarded (acknowledged?) for >> "useful" reports, start defining "useful" and the heuristics you'd use >> to identify them. > > * Does the report identify an actual failure for the common use case of CPAN > installation or does it identify a failure in configuring the CPAN Testers > client? > > * Does the report identify a known failure already reported elsewhere with > the > same characteristics? > > * Does the report identify a success on a previously unknown > platform/configuration combination? > > * Does the platform combination include a supported version of Perl? > > My criteria for usefulness suggest answers of "Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes." I > realize that the third question is more difficult to answer in the presence > of XS components, but most of the distributions on the CPAN are pure Perl. > > -- c > >
* Does the report actually include the error at all? useful: A CPAN testers FAIL report that actually includes the failure it signifies. http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2008/08/msg2060496.html http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2008/08/msg2060470.html