On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 05:31 +1000, Andrew Savige wrote: > I feel pushily promoting kwalitee metrics will do more harm than good. > And I agree with chromatic that officially endorsing any particular > kwalitee metric is a mistake that is likely to cause unproductive > flame wars.
It's not that endorsing metrics is a problem, it's that certain metrics purport to measure things that I don't think you can (or should) measure. Maybe the problem is that CPANTS as it exists now measures some metrics better measured on the developer side, not the installer side. It's handy to run the POD coverage tests as the developer of a module, but it's not that interesting for the person installing the module to run them. It would be handy to check that the version numbers and MANIFEST match as the developer, but not really for the person installing the module. A test for forgetting to check in new files to the repository (or add them to the MANIFEST) would be very useful as a developer, but useless to the installer. I realize that the public side of CPANTS (the existing side) can't reliably show these scores (or people could edit their META.yml files to fudge their scores), but the benefits are: - usable without uploading a module - easier for first-time module writers - works with in-house modules never intended for public distribution - provides a good final out-the-door sanity check for CPAN authors - keeps useful tests, but pushes them to where they're most useful Some kwalitee metrics are useful in both places and that's fine. I just wonder if some of PANTS should be more private. -- c
