Re: CPAN Rating

[Kevin C. Krinke]

On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 11:59, Adrian Howard wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2004, at 11:41, khemir nadim wrote:
> [snip]
> > OK. but a module without a readme with meaning ful content, a minimum 
> > of
> > documentation is not "anything" it's "nothing" so I'd say it's OK to 
> > not
> > allow "nothing" to get into CPAN.
> [snip]
> 
> Tosh ;-)
> 
> If I removed the README file from one of my CPAN modules would it 
> suddenly become "nothing"? No.
> 
> A distribution without a README is perfectly usable, maybe slightly 
> less usable than one with a README, but still usable.
> 
> Personally I've had more problems with out of date and inaccurate 
> READMEs than I have with absent ones. In fact I can't remember the last 
> time I looked at a README file - the POD's always my first port of 
> call, followed by META.yml, Makefile/Build.PL and the test suite.
> 
> [snip]
> > The access to CPAN is not moderated in any way (my anarchist side likes
> > that) but maybe a minimum of control wouldn't hurt (my fascite side 
> > like
> > that)
> [snip]
> 
> Since I don't think  anybody else has mentioned it you might find 
> Jarkko's "The Zen of Comprehensive Archive 
>  an interesting read. Two excerpts:
> 
>   "adding any rating or approval processes creates bottlenecks, and
>   bottlenecks are bad"
> 
>   "There is no magic. All it takes is a few people that sit down
>   and get first something running, a rough cut. Then iteratively enhance
>   it. Don't try to create a master plan that will get everything right
>   in one fell swoop. The only one that will get swooped is you."
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adrian

For whatever my opinion is worth I agree with Jarkko in that any rating
or approval process would be detrimental to the overall state of CPAN
(short of namespace delegation which certainly requires moderation to
some degree).

Let's not bother with any inherent rating system and if people really
really want to rate modules they can do so in a separate forum
environment that has nothing directly to do with CPAN itself with the
exception of linking to search.cpan.org pages (one way from the forums
to CPAN and not the other way around).

Personally I m!LOVE! CPAN just as it is and there isn't a thing I'd
change about it. Then again what do I know *shrugs* I'm just one lowly
CPAN contributor and user.

-- 
Kevin C. Krinke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Open Door Software Inc.

Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip

[A. Pagaltzis]

* Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-17 16:15]:
> So I think a good name might be JavaScript::Tooltip::HTML.

I put in another vote for this.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle
"If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."

Re: CPAN rating

[SilvioCVdeAlmeida]

Well, I step into this thread because I _really_ think it's complicating
some (maybe) simple thing.

There can be many distinct actions:
1. search/browse CPAN for a module.
2. use (or require :) a module.
2.1  use it because I'm in a hurry or don't like to rewrite code.
2.2  use it because I don't know how to do without.
3. evaluate a module.
3.1  I test it myself.
3.2  I look for other's experience.
4. download a module.
4.1  modem, browse cpan.org, modules_by_category (Hi Fergal, why not
some fast_CPAN_by_category without authors folders and ancient versions?
Of course excelent readme files are _essential_ when browsing. PS: I'm
this one!)
4.2  fast conection and CPAN tool.
5. develop a module, or collaborate on development.
6. keep my program and modules it use updated in my environment.
7. etc, etc, etc...

I believe we should, before going on discussion about rating system and
CPAN, clear the following points:

1. Is it possible/good/desireable to change CPAN engine or
create/improve a excelent/visible/unique rating system, should this
thread take us there?

2. If so, is it good idea start besides Perl6 (I suppose that a lot of
module-writers will have to upload new versions, so perhaps Perl6 is
_the_ suitable synchronizing point).

3. Finally, if so, well, we'd better to clear all of that distinct
actions into a kind of taxonomy of purposes. Both browsing (the
comprehensive universe) and searching (for one specific topic) are
essential. It seems like none is good enough by now.

Silvio

Re: CPAN Rating

[Adrian Howard]

On 17 Jun 2004, at 11:41, khemir nadim wrote:
[snip]
OK. but a module without a readme with meaning ful content, a minimum 
of
documentation is not "anything" it's "nothing" so I'd say it's OK to 
not
allow "nothing" to get into CPAN.
[snip]
Tosh ;-)
If I removed the README file from one of my CPAN modules would it 
suddenly become "nothing"? No.

A distribution without a README is perfectly usable, maybe slightly 
less usable than one with a README, but still usable.

Personally I've had more problems with out of date and inaccurate 
READMEs than I have with absent ones. In fact I can't remember the last 
time I looked at a README file - the POD's always my first port of 
call, followed by META.yml, Makefile/Build.PL and the test suite.

[snip]
The access to CPAN is not moderated in any way (my anarchist side likes
that) but maybe a minimum of control wouldn't hurt (my fascite side 
like
that)
[snip]
Since I don't think  anybody else has mentioned it you might find 
Jarkko's "The Zen of Comprehensive Archive 
 an interesting read. Two excerpts:

"adding any rating or approval processes creates bottlenecks, and
bottlenecks are bad"
"There is no magic. All it takes is a few people that sit down
and get first something running, a rough cut. Then iteratively enhance
it. Don't try to create a master plan that will get everything right
in one fell swoop. The only one that will get swooped is you."
Cheers,
Adrian

Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip

[Mark Stosberg]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:13:08AM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
> 
> Yeah, HTML::Tooltip and CGI::Tooltip seem like the obvious names.  I 
> don't think you need to put "Javascript" into the name, that's too much 
> information.

Actually, I like JavaScript::Tooltip. If the the code is not
HTML-specific, it may well be useful in other places JavaScript is used.
It's my understanding that JavaScript also is used with SVG, PDF and
Scribus documents.

So I think a good name might be JavaScript::Tooltip::HTML.
Then people could implement the same API with different backends:

JavaScript::Tooltip::SVG
JavaScript::Tooltip::PDF

(I'm not even sure that PDF would support this kind of tooltip, but
I imagine SVG would.)

Mark

Re: CPAN Rating

[Chris Josephes]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Fergal Daly wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:39:22PM -0300, SilvioCVdeAlmeida wrote:
> > Let's write it better:
> > 1. FORBID any module without a meaningful readme with all its (possibly
> > recursive) dependencies, its pod and any other relevant information
> > inside.
>
> Having the dependencies easily visible is a good idea but rather than
> banning those modules which don't do, it should be done automitcally by the
> CPAN indexer, all the info is there.


A couple of things.

1. I thought CPAN automatically rejected uploads that didn't include a
README file (I could be wrong on this).

2. A "meaningful readme" is very vague.  I'm not saying it's a bad idea,
but it's open to interpretation.  A lot of times, I just refer people to
the POD docs.

3. Testing dependencies might be really difficult to automate, especially
if a module requires a lot of non-core modules.  Also, what happens if a
dependent module changes or breaks?  How would that affect the testing
status of the module you uploaded?

An easier alternative might be to use testers.cpan.org to our advantage.
Why not just write "UNTESTED" in big bold letters until a test run is
submitted.  That would cover the dependency issue.



Christopher Josephes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: New module: CGI::Tooltip

[Chris Josephes]

I'm 50/50 on this.

Just because a module name mentions "Javascript" doesn't mean it would
immediately be discounted by other developers.  If people need something
to handle Tooltips, they'll use it, or at least read the pod
documentation.

Also, there are lots of other tooltip implementations out there in
browsers.  Some people implement tooltips purely in CSS.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Pearce, Martyn wrote:

> I am not convinced of this.  As I read it, the developer using CGI::Tooltip
> needs no Javascript knowledge; I think I would see CGI::Javascript::Tooltip
> and immediately exclude it as I have no knowledge of Javascript.  It should
> be made clear in the docs of the module that javascript is required at the
> client end, but clearly tooltips are meaningless without a gui, and very few
> GUI browsers are not javascript-enabled.  I'm all for meaningful names, but
> they don't have to carry all the documentation in one line.
>
> Becky, this seems to me to be a very useful module.
>
> Mx.
>


Christopher Josephes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip

[Ken Williams]

On Jun 17, 2004, at 7:36 AM, darren chamberlain wrote:
* Becky Alcorn  [2004/06/17 12:25]:
We're looking at releasing our new module CGI::Tooltip onto CPAN.  
This
module provides a simple perl interface to Walter Zorn's elegant 
Javascript
tooltip library (http://www.walterzorn.com/tooltip/tooltip_e.htm).  
This
library provides a flexible way of adding good looking tooltips
(onmouseovers or popup boxes) to web pages.  How appropriate is the 
name
CGI::Tooltip?
Is the interface and intended usage CGI specific or HTML specific?
Perhaps HTML::Tooltip?
Yeah, HTML::Tooltip and CGI::Tooltip seem like the obvious names.  I 
don't think you need to put "Javascript" into the name, that's too much 
information.

 -Ken

Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip

[darren chamberlain]

* Becky Alcorn  [2004/06/17 12:25]:
> We're looking at releasing our new module CGI::Tooltip onto CPAN.  This
> module provides a simple perl interface to Walter Zorn's elegant Javascript
> tooltip library (http://www.walterzorn.com/tooltip/tooltip_e.htm).  This
> library provides a flexible way of adding good looking tooltips
> (onmouseovers or popup boxes) to web pages.  How appropriate is the name
> CGI::Tooltip?

Is the interface and intended usage CGI specific or HTML specific?
Perhaps HTML::Tooltip?

(darren)

-- 
Words are also deeds.
-- Lugwig Wittgenstein


pgpMUkOL9Z3kB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: CPAN Rating

[Eric Cholet]

Le 17 juin 04, à 12:41, khemir nadim a écrit :
OK. but a module without a readme with meaning ful content, a minimum 
of
documentation is not "anything" it's "nothing" so I'd say it's OK to 
not
allow "nothing" to get into CPAN. We, of course, want to avoid 
waisting our
time but I think all want to help the module author to get the a 
chance to
be used.
No, it's not "nothing". It's just code, and code may be valuable in 
itself,
even without documentation. Maybe a less strict rule would be to allow 
such
modules to go in CPAN while they're at version number 0.x.

--
Eric Cholet

RE: New module: CGI::Tooltip

[Pearce, Martyn]

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

>-Original Message-
>From: khemir nadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:52 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip
>
>
>OK that was the first part of my proposal (and I find your 
>explication for its dismissa fine) but as was explained in the 
>original posting, this module needs a library to be installed. 
>Wouldn't it be nice for the people browsing around to get that 
>information right away?
>
>Would CGI::Tooltip::Whateverlibrary be acceptable?
>
>N.
>
>
>"Martyn Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e.corp.gs.com...
> I am not convinced of this.  As I read it, the developer using
CGI::Tooltip
> needs no Javascript knowledge; I think I would see
CGI::Javascript::Tooltip
> and immediately exclude it as I have no knowledge of Javascript.  It
should
> be made clear in the docs of the module that javascript is required at 
> the client end, but clearly tooltips are meaningless without a gui, 
> and very
few
> GUI browsers are not javascript-enabled.  I'm all for meaningful 
> names,
but
> they don't have to carry all the documentation in one line.

> >-Original Message-
> >From: khemir nadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >I think it would be appropriate to further catalogue the module name 
> >under "Java" or the name od the specific library you interface with.

Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip

[khemir nadim]

OK that was the first part of my proposal (and I find your explication for
its dismissa fine) but as was explained in the original posting, this module
needs a library to be installed. Wouldn't it be nice for the people browsing
around to get that information right away?

Would CGI::Tooltip::Whateverlibrary be acceptable?

N.


"Martyn Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I am not convinced of this.  As I read it, the developer using
CGI::Tooltip
> needs no Javascript knowledge; I think I would see
CGI::Javascript::Tooltip
> and immediately exclude it as I have no knowledge of Javascript.  It
should
> be made clear in the docs of the module that javascript is required at the
> client end, but clearly tooltips are meaningless without a gui, and very
few
> GUI browsers are not javascript-enabled.  I'm all for meaningful names,
but
> they don't have to carry all the documentation in one line.

> >-Original Message-
> >From: khemir nadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >I think it would be appropriate to further catalogue the
> >module name under "Java" or the name od the specific library
> >you interface with.

Re: CPAN Rating

[khemir nadim]

"Eric Wilhelm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >FORBID any module without a meaningful readme with all its (possibly
> >recursive) dependencies, its pod and any other relevant information
> >inside.

> I don't think it is in the spirit of CPAN to "FORBID" anything.

OK. but a module without a readme with meaning ful content, a minimum of
documentation is not "anything" it's "nothing" so I'd say it's OK to not
allow "nothing" to get into CPAN. We, of course, want to avoid waisting our
time but I think all want to help the module author to get the a chance to
be used.

I would also forbid (yes that's forbid this time) modules without makefile
to make it into CPAN.

There is unfortunately no system to check if "meaningful documentation"
exists in the distribution or not (some AI guru may want to look at this :-)

The spirit of CPAN is quite straighforwardly described when it come to
documentation but unfortunately a dummy (dumb) readme is generated instead
for "forcing" the user to write one.

The access to CPAN is not moderated in any way (my anarchist side likes
that) but maybe a minimum of control wouldn't hurt (my fascite side like
that)

Cheers, Nadim

PS: I wouldn't  like to find commercial modules on CPAN either

RE: New module: CGI::Tooltip

[Pearce, Martyn]

I am not convinced of this.  As I read it, the developer using CGI::Tooltip
needs no Javascript knowledge; I think I would see CGI::Javascript::Tooltip
and immediately exclude it as I have no knowledge of Javascript.  It should
be made clear in the docs of the module that javascript is required at the
client end, but clearly tooltips are meaningless without a gui, and very few
GUI browsers are not javascript-enabled.  I'm all for meaningful names, but
they don't have to carry all the documentation in one line.

Becky, this seems to me to be a very useful module.

Mx.

>-Original Message-
>From: khemir nadim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:25 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip
>
>
>I think it would be appropriate to further catalogue the 
>module name under "Java" or the name od the specific library 
>you interface with.
>
>"Becky Alcorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> We're looking at releasing our new module CGI::Tooltip onto CPAN.  
>> This module provides a simple perl interface to Walter Zorn's elegant
>Javascript
>> tooltip library (http://www.walterzorn.com/tooltip/tooltip_e.htm).  
>> This library provides a flexible way of adding good looking tooltips 
>> (onmouseovers or popup boxes) to web pages.  How appropriate is the 
>> name CGI::Tooltip?
>>
>> Regards
>> Becky
>>
>
>

Re: New module: CGI::Tooltip

[khemir nadim]

I think it would be appropriate to further catalogue the module name under
"Java" or the name od the specific library you interface with.

"Becky Alcorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> We're looking at releasing our new module CGI::Tooltip onto CPAN.  This
> module provides a simple perl interface to Walter Zorn's elegant
Javascript
> tooltip library (http://www.walterzorn.com/tooltip/tooltip_e.htm).  This
> library provides a flexible way of adding good looking tooltips
> (onmouseovers or popup boxes) to web pages.  How appropriate is the name
> CGI::Tooltip?
>
> Regards
> Becky
>

Re: failures that aren't failures

[khemir nadim]

"Fergal Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi all,
>
> One of my modules has a failure noted against it that was caused by the
> tester's wonky Perl installation. How can this be removed?

I don't have this problem but my modules sometimes fail on windows platform
when theyr  are not supposed to work there at all.

Re: CPAN Rating

[Leon Brocard]

Ken Williams sent the following bits through the ether:

> Dependencies are now listed in the META.yml file, which is human- and 
> machine-readable.

Only in recent modules which use Module::Build. Whereas it's not that
hard[2] to get "good enough" dependencies for the rest. Now decide
who's going to generate this data and where it'll be displayed. And
then do it.

Leon

[1] And MakeMaker on CPAN (but not in Perl)
[2] http://search.cpan.org/dist/Module-Depends/
-- 
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
scribot.http://www.scribot.com/

... Know what I hate most? Rhetorical questions

New module: CGI::Tooltip

[Becky Alcorn]

We're looking at releasing our new module CGI::Tooltip onto CPAN.  This
module provides a simple perl interface to Walter Zorn's elegant Javascript
tooltip library (http://www.walterzorn.com/tooltip/tooltip_e.htm).  This
library provides a flexible way of adding good looking tooltips
(onmouseovers or popup boxes) to web pages.  How appropriate is the name
CGI::Tooltip?

Regards
Becky