On Nov 6, 2009, at 4:52 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
On 09:48 pm, rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 at 15:48, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
Documentation would be great, but then you have to get people to
read the documentation and that's kind of tricky. Better would be
for every project on PyPI to have a score which listed warnings
emitted with each version of Python. People love optimizing for
stuff like that and comparing it.
I suspect that even if all warnings were completely silent by
default, developers would suddenly become keenly interested in
fixing them if there were a metric like that publicly posted
somewhere :).
+1, but somebody needs to write the code...
How would you collect this information? Would you run the test
suite for each project? This would reward projects with small or
absent test suites. ;)
*I* would not collect this information, as I am far enough behind on
other projects ;-) but I if I were to advise someone *else* as to how
to do it, I'd probably add a feature to the 'warnings' module where
users could opt-in (sort of like popcon.debian.org) to report warnings
encountered during normal invocations of any of their Python programs.
I would also advise such a hypothetical data-gathering project to
start with a buildbot doing coverage runs; any warning during the test
suite would be 1 demerit, any warning during an actual end-user run of
the application *not* caught by the test suite would be 1000
demerits :).
And actually it would make more sense if this were part of an overall
quality metric, like http://pycheesecake.org/ proposes (although I
think that cheesecake's current metric is not really that great, the
idea is wonderful).
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
