Re: About tidying up Kwalitee metrics
--- On Sat, 28/6/08, Aristotle Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the game is actually an excellent idea. The problem is with the metrics. Here are some metrics that are inarguably good: • has_buildtool • extracts_nicely • metayml_conforms_to_known_spec One problem with this is when you get dinged for an unknown key. This means you can't extend your meta YAML file. It's a hash disguised as YAML. There shouldn't be a problem with adding to it, only subtracting from it. On a side note, I still don't understand why I sometimes get dinged for CPANTs errors. Here's one for HOP-Lexer (http://cpants.perl.org/dist/errors/HOP-Lexer): STDERR: Invalid row in Debian file: libhtml-wikiconverter-moinmoin-perl, HTM STDOUT: I have no idea what this is and I have no way of correcting it yet I am getting dinged for it. I see that I can send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but why? I don't understand why CPANTs bugs are counted against me. Cheers, Ovid
Re: About tidying up Kwalitee metrics
Hi!
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 01:54:19AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
On a side note, I still don't understand why I sometimes get dinged for
CPANTs errors.
Here's one for HOP-Lexer (http://cpants.perl.org/dist/errors/HOP-Lexer):
STDERR: Invalid row in Debian file: libhtml-wikiconverter-moinmoin-perl,
HTM
STDOUT:
I have no idea what this is and I have no way of correcting it yet I am
getting dinged for it. I see that I can send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
but why? I don't understand why CPANTs bugs are counted against me.
As Gabor already suggested, most of the texts on cpants.perl.org should
be overhauled and extendend.
For example:
http://cpants.perl.org/kwalitee.html#no_cpants_errors
no_cpants_errors
Shortcoming: Some errors occured during CPANTS testing. They might
be caused by bugs in CPANTS or some strange features of this
distribution. See 'cpants' in the dist error view for more info.
Remedy: Please report the error(s) to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'Shortcoming' should be extended to say:
The goal of deducting a kwalitee point for 'no_cpants_errors' is to get
authors to report CPANTS bugs. As you might guess, testing 10.000+
different dists is hard. There are lot of special cases. It's impossible
to figure out all those special cases in advance. 'no_cpants_errors' is
a way to outsource the discovery of special cases to module authors.
or something like that...
--
#!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.plix.at
for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$-gprint$_.$/}
Re: About tidying up Kwalitee metrics
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-06-29 10:55]: --- On Sat, 28/6/08, Aristotle Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the game is actually an excellent idea. The problem is with the metrics. Here are some metrics that are inarguably good: • has_buildtool • extracts_nicely • metayml_conforms_to_known_spec One problem with this is when you get dinged for an unknown key. This means you can't extend your meta YAML file. It's a hash disguised as YAML. There shouldn't be a problem with adding to it, only subtracting from it. On a side note, I still don't understand why I sometimes get dinged for CPANTs errors. Yes, but that doesn’t detract from my point. If those metrics are faulty, they should and *can* be fixed – and either way they measure good form directly, as good metrics should. The problems with them don’t fall in the same category as looking for arbitrarily chosen proxies for unmeasurable aspects of good form (or even style). Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: About tidying up Kwalitee metrics
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The goal of deducting a kwalitee point for 'no_cpants_errors' is to get authors to report CPANTS bugs. Why do you need authors to report those? After a run, you have a list of all of the errors already.
Re: About tidying up Kwalitee metrics
On Sunday 29 June 2008 02:28:54 Thomas Klausner wrote: For example: http://cpants.perl.org/kwalitee.html#no_cpants_errors no_cpants_errors Shortcoming: Some errors occured during CPANTS testing. They might be caused by bugs in CPANTS or some strange features of this distribution. See 'cpants' in the dist error view for more info. Remedy: Please report the error(s) to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Shortcoming' should be extended to say: The goal of deducting a kwalitee point for 'no_cpants_errors' is to get authors to report CPANTS bugs. As you might guess, testing 10.000+ different dists is hard. There are lot of special cases. It's impossible to figure out all those special cases in advance. 'no_cpants_errors' is a way to outsource the discovery of special cases to module authors. or something like that... I thought the goal of Kwalitee was to identify good free software, not to humiliate thousands of other authors of free software for not anticipating and working around your bugs. I didn't ask you to scan my distributions, and it's kind of a problem for me that you're willing to write publicly that their Kwalitee would be higher if I reported bugs in code I didn't write, don't use, and don't believe in -- especially if you're going to claim that Kwalitee metrics are useful in deciding whether to use my distributions. (If you don't claim that, then replace my objection with Okay, so what's the point again?) Want to fix CPANTS and Kwalitee? It's simple: * get rid of the scoreboard * dump the harmful metrics (POD checking, etc) * separate all of the informational metrics from the genuinely useful metrics * report to authors when their uploads fail the useful metrics -- c
Re: About tidying up Kwalitee metrics
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:49 PM, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 29 June 2008 02:28:54 Thomas Klausner wrote: For example: http://cpants.perl.org/kwalitee.html#no_cpants_errors no_cpants_errors Shortcoming: Some errors occured during CPANTS testing. They might be caused by bugs in CPANTS or some strange features of this distribution. See 'cpants' in the dist error view for more info. Remedy: Please report the error(s) to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Shortcoming' should be extended to say: The goal of deducting a kwalitee point for 'no_cpants_errors' is to get authors to report CPANTS bugs. As you might guess, testing 10.000+ different dists is hard. There are lot of special cases. It's impossible to figure out all those special cases in advance. 'no_cpants_errors' is a way to outsource the discovery of special cases to module authors. or something like that... I thought the goal of Kwalitee was to identify good free software, not to humiliate thousands of other authors of free software for not anticipating and working around your bugs. I also think the no_cpants_errors has no place in the core metrics nor actually any metric. It should be only seen by the CPANTS authors ... but chromatic, while I have not added that specific metric your tone is offending and humiliating me and maybe also Thomas and possibly others who invest time to try to make CPAN a better place. Gabor
Re: About tidying up Kwalitee metrics
On Sunday 29 June 2008 11:02:17 Gabor Szabo wrote: On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:49 PM, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought the goal of Kwalitee was to identify good free software, not to humiliate thousands of other authors of free software for not anticipating and working around your bugs. I also think the no_cpants_errors has no place in the core metrics nor actually any metric. It should be only seen by the CPANTS authors ... but chromatic, while I have not added that specific metric your tone is offending and humiliating me and maybe also Thomas and possibly others who invest time to try to make CPAN a better place. I certainly don't mean to humiliate anyone. Please accept my apologies. However, does making CPAN a better place require publishing a Hall of Shame on perl.org? http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/hall_of_shame I think what I want from CPANTS is conceptually simple: * tell me (and my potential users) if a recent upload is well-behaved (all but three of the core metrics achieve this) * provide optional information as information alone (packaged by various OS distributions, used by other CPAN distributions) * drop the game, with winners and losers and (especially) scores -- c
