Andy Lester wrote:
Patches to Module::Starter are always welcome. My ears are always
open. Your ideas make sense, especially about noting the Pod::Coverage
version.
I don't suppose you'd want a patch to drop pod/pod-coverage testing
entirely? ;-)
Since I'm in the opposed camp, I don't
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-14 13:45]:
How about one that makes pod/pod-coverage skip-all by default
unless the author explicitly changes the .t files to turn them
on?
In http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=508155 I wrote:
A better approach would be to make their
Title: RE: Another CPANTS/pod_coverage.t rant - FULL VERSION
As far as CPANTS is concerned, awarding points for the respective
issues by checking the metrics themselves is a good idea, but
looking for tests for these metrics seems rather pointless.
Again, checking whether the POD
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
But at this point, I think even this is not quite the right
approach. Rather, the tests should be built directly into
Module::Build itself à la the `testcover` target. Test::Pod needs
no parametrisation, so it would be trivial to integrate, and it
also is the really valuable
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 08:56:32AM -0500, David Golden wrote:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
But at this point, I think even this is not quite the right
approach. Rather, the tests should be built directly into
Module::Build itself à la the `testcover` target. Test::Pod needs
no parametrisation, so it
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-14T08:56:32]
Pod syntax checking is there already as testpod. It would be fairly
trivial to add testpodcover, but I suspect that never happened because
testcover does it already through Devel::Cover.
Test::Pod::Coverage needs to evaluate the Perl
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-14T08:56:32]
Pod syntax checking is there already as testpod. It would be fairly
trivial to add testpodcover, but I suspect that never happened because
testcover does it already through Devel::Cover.
Test::Pod::Coverage needs
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 07:40:59AM -0500, David Golden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
How about one that makes pod/pod-coverage skip-all by default unless the
author explicitly changes the .t files to turn them on?
No. Module::Starter is a case where I'm using the package as
evangelism.
Users
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-14 15:00]:
Pod syntax checking is there already as testpod.
Ah. I even have a fairly recent version of Module::Build, but it
seems I need to upgrade again.
It would be fairly trivial to add testpodcover, but I suspect
that never happened because
Would it be useful for Module::Build to warn you if perl Build dist is
run without a successful run of these tests?
$ perl Built dist
KWALITEE WARNING: It's recommended you run perl Build disttest
beforehand.
KWALITEE WARNING: It's recommended you run perl Build testpod
beforehand.
...
--- Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. Module::Starter is a case where I'm using the package as
evangelism.
If it's for evangalism, could we have Build.PL do the right thing and
have Module::Starter::Simple add the following line?
create_makefile_pl = 'traditional',
The reasons are
On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:20 PM, Ovid wrote:
--- Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. Module::Starter is a case where I'm using the package as
evangelism.
If it's for evangalism, could we have Build.PL do the right thing and
have Module::Starter::Simple add the following line?
There's a Dennis Miller bit I love. He's talking about how he's
looking at an issue of Cosmopolitan and is horrified to see an
article called Trick Your Man Into Making Tex-Mex. He's
incredulous. Trick me? Fuckin' ASK ME!
Thoughts? If we can get a consensus on this or a similar
13 matches
Mail list logo