> I think we could be considering a number of dimensions. Brainstorming:
>
> * fails tests now – i.e. blocking automated dep installations – this is your
> existing metric
> * possibly an OS-specific variation of the above
> * stability over time – possibly your existing metric, but taking last
On 11 May 2015 at 19:20, Neil Bowers wrote:
> look at 2 or more CPAN Testers fails where the only difference is an
> upriver version number.
my point didn't pertain to upriver versions changing, but the observation
that upriver modules can have buggy code that is only broken on certain
architec
> On 11 May 2015, at 01:47, Kent Fredric wrote:
> So the quality of a dist could be measured indirectly by the failure rate of
> its dependents.
This was kind of the basis of the “River Smoker” idea that Tux and and I
discussed late on the last day of the QAH:
http://neilb.org/2015/04/
3 matches
Mail list logo
