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
