On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 05:31 +1000, Andrew Savige wrote:
> I feel pushily promoting kwalitee metrics will do more harm than good.
> And I agree with chromatic that officially endorsing any particular
> kwalitee metric is a mistake that is likely to cause unproductive
> flame wars.
It's not that en
--- Thomas Klausner wrote:
> *) CPANTS is not describing the one and only way how to write Perl / pack
> distribution. It's more of an online mutliplayer game where people submit
> their dists which than fight against my evil metrics.
The multiplayer game you describe is subject to the testing
phe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
here is another idea for a metric:
Modules/pragmas/etc use'd by Heap cnt
in code:
AutoLoader 1
Heap does use AutoLoader, but it never defined any methods to autoload, so
this is totally in vain.
(I did write a new version of Heap, offered i
Hi!
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 05:31:37AM +1000, Andrew Savige wrote:
> flame wars. Best, at least for now, is to simply publish some
> kwalitee metrics as an optional aid to enthusiastic CPAN authors.
> If they prove good and useful, they will naturally become better known.
Some of my recent thoug
--- Andy Lester wrote:
> But will the author actually care? Will the author even know this
> exists? Are you going to send email to Bob and say "Hey, Bob, you only
> passed 7 of 23 things"? What's Bob going to say in return? I see a
> couple of options:
Ah, now I see where you are coming from.
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 09:12 -0400, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> I really don't get why the people (not specifically you) who don't agree
> with, don't care for, don't care about CPANTs or more CPANTS tests spend
> all this effort going off on why it's such a bad thing and why it
> shouldn't be
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Thomas Klausner wrote:
has_perl_dependency:
In the META.yml (assuming it exists) there is a dependency on the
version of perl required to install the dist.
The goal of this is to make life a little easier on installers and CPAN
testers and a few other things.
Many many mod
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 09:10, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Andy Lester wrote:
> > Why are we worrying about these automated kwalitee tests? What will
> > happen once we find that DBIx::Wango has only passed 7 of these 23
> > items on the checklist?
>
> I t
Andy Lester wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:07:02AM -0400, Christopher H. Laco ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
Why would they stop uploading? How would they, the new uploaders, even
know about CPANTS? It's not like uploaded files automatically return a
scathing email and an html response page th
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:07:02AM -0400, Christopher H. Laco ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Why would they stop uploading? How would they, the new uploaders, even
> know about CPANTS? It's not like uploaded files automatically return a
> scathing email and an html response page that says your "mo
Adam Kennedy wrote:
missing_no_index:
Only the libraries (and .pod docs) in your dist should be indexed)
things in inc/ and t/ and examples/ etc should NOT be indexed. Thus,
there should be a no_index entry in the meta.yml for all of these
directories (if they have .pm files in them).
I like i
Andy Lester wrote:
Why are we worrying about these automated kwalitee tests? What will
happen once we find that DBIx::Wango has only passed 7 of these 23 items
on the checklist?
I don't have any problem with someone proposing or running these kinds of
automated test. It's helpful feedback
Andy Lester wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:12:43AM -0400, Christopher H. Laco ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
If it serves no purpose for you, ignore it and go on
with life; as apposed to spending email list cycles on a
CPANTS-is-bad-why-are-we-doing-this diatribe.
It's not as simple as "jus
Ivan Tubert-Brohman wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance, but I had never even heard of this option. I
don't find any way of setting it via MakeMaker or Module::Build. Do I
have to edit META.yml by hand? Would it get overritten by 'make dist'?
The spec is here:
http://module-build.sourceforge.net/ME
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:12:43AM -0400, Christopher H. Laco ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
> If it serves no purpose for you, ignore it and go on
> with life; as apposed to spending email list cycles on a
> CPANTS-is-bad-why-are-we-doing-this diatribe.
It's not as simple as "just ignore it" if th
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 05:10:40PM +1000, Adam Kennedy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> So once you find out DBIx::Wango only passed 7 out of 23, it will go
> into the author's average, and if he ever looks presumably the
> competative spirit will kick in and he's fix some of the "problems"
But wil
Richard Clamp wrote:
On 6 Sep 2005, at 08:10, Adam Kennedy wrote:
So once you find out DBIx::Wango only passed 7 out of 23, it will go
into the author's average, and if he ever looks presumably the
competative spirit will kick in and he's fix some of the "problems"
That's assuming that e
On 6 Sep 2005, at 08:10, Adam Kennedy wrote:
So once you find out DBIx::Wango only passed 7 out of 23, it will
go into the author's average, and if he ever looks presumably the
competative spirit will kick in and he's fix some of the "problems"
That's assuming that everyone is competitive
Andy Lester wrote:
Why are we worrying about these automated kwalitee tests? What will
happen once we find that DBIx::Wango has only passed 7 of these 23 items
on the checklist?
I thought the same thing, until kwalitee turned competative. Now we have
a situation in which a large number
Dear all,
I have submitted a bug report to "rt.cpan.org" and have been told to
forward a copy of the bug report on to this list. The bug report is
attached to this email.
FYI - the "use Test::MockObject" line causes the code to die because
Test::MockObject now depends on UNIVERSAL::can (the
Apart from a user wanting to know which version of perl a module
works with, it's a general "quality" (not kwalitee;-) principle to
first specify, then test that the specification is met. So I would
say that specifying which versions of perl your module is meant to
work with should be done before
--- Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are we worrying about these automated kwalitee tests? What will
> happen once we find that DBIx::Wango has only passed 7 of these 23
> items on the checklist?
I am not the one to answer this, but I'm curious to know where you are
coming from. Is
22 matches
Mail list logo
