I simultaneously started this debate on perlmonks:
http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=909453 and exactly the same points came up
there so I am just posing my response.
--
Nicholas Bamber | http://www.periapt.co.uk/
PGP key 3BFFE73C from pgp.mit.edu
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Dave Cross wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 01:45 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
> >
> >CPANTS is over there --> :-)
>
> Actually, CPANTS looks a little broken. Its data is almost three years old.
>
> "CPANTS data generated with Perl 5.010001, Module::CPANTS::Analyse
>
On 06/14/2011 01:45 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:39:55PM +0100, Edmund von der Burg wrote:
On 14 June 2011 12:22, David Cantrell wrote:
It also has the problem that only people who care will use your module
in their tests, and they will be exactly the sort of people who
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 01:39:55PM +0100, Edmund von der Burg wrote:
> On 14 June 2011 12:22, David Cantrell wrote:
> > It also has the problem that only people who care will use your module
> > in their tests, and they will be exactly the sort of people who don't
> > need your module!
> Perhaps t
On 14 June 2011 12:22, David Cantrell wrote:
> It also has the problem that only people who care will use your module
> in their tests, and they will be exactly the sort of people who don't
> need your module!
True.
Perhaps this idea should live in the cpantesters' domain - I'd love to
get an em
David Cantrell said:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Experience in packaging perl modules from CPAN , suggests that most
CPAN authors are woefully ignorant of copyright and licensing
issues.
Doing the Right Thing isn't exactly obvious/easy either, so I don't
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:25:00PM +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> Experience in packaging perl modules from CPAN , suggests that most CPAN
> authors are woefully ignorant of copyright and licensing issues.
> Unfortunately I have been provoked into attempting to do something about
> this. I presen
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:37:00AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> Also, I'm not sure why the copyright statements in individual files
> need to match the general copyright statement - if a given submodule
> was last updated in 1997 and was stable since then, then I would
> expect it to have a copyri
What's the point of checking for a copyright ending date that matches
the current year?
Or perhaps I should ask, whom do you envisage running such tests? The
developer, or end users?
It's good for the developer, I suppose, but useless for end users - if
they install something that was last update
Experience in packaging perl modules from CPAN , suggests that most CPAN
authors are woefully ignorant of copyright and licensing issues.
Unfortunately I have been provoked into attempting to do something about
this. I present Test::Copyright. I would appreciate feedback not least
on the idea.
--
10 matches
Mail list logo
