> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Neil Bowers wrote:
>
>> Number (and age if possible) of open tickets might show if someone's paying
>> attention to the dist. Like David said, much like the adoption criteria. The
>> issues don't have to be valid, they could even be spam for all it matters,
>> a
> You could try collecting up a bunch of these different metrics and then run a
> regression analysis against the graph wise recursive downstream dep count for
> everything on CPAN and see which metrics fall out in the real world.
I might have a dabble at this, perhaps roping in help from someon
> Number (and age if possible) of open tickets might show if someone's paying
> attention to the dist. Like David said, much like the adoption criteria. The
> issues don't have to be valid, they could even be spam for all it matters, as
> long as someone's taking care of them.
This is a tricky
> I thought the "min perl version" is a tough metric without considering what
> version of Perl it will actually run on. I would refine that metric to
> "declared min perl version >= actual perl version required". Figuring out
> the latter could perhaps be done via CPAN Testers -- if all of 5.
Hi Neil,
happy holidays.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:05:03 +
Neil Bowers wrote:
> At the London Perl Workshop I gave a talk on the CPAN River, and how
> development and release practices should mature as a dist moves up river.
> This was prompted by the discussions we had at Berlin earlier this
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:05:03PM +, Neil Bowers wrote:
>At the London Perl Workshop I gave a talk on the CPAN River, and how
> development and release practices
>should mature as a dist moves up river. This was prompted by the
> discussions we had at Berlin earlier
>this year.
>
6 matches
Mail list logo
