- Original Message
From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ok 1
> > not ok 2
> > 1..2
> > # this comment is acceptable
> > ... but what about this?
>
> Shouldn't that last line always be an error wherever it occurs?
For purposes of forward compatability, it's been my
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:35, Ovid wrote:
> Since the parser is not supposed to do anything with junk lines, I assume
> that junk after the plan is also allowed? For right now, I'll assume it's
> not and just add support later.
>
> ok 1
> not ok 2
> 1..2
> # this comment i
- Original Message
From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ovid wrote:
> > Which is correct? I'm assuming that comments *are*
> > allowed after the plan?
>
> Comments are exempt.
Since the parser is not supposed to do anything with junk lines, I assume that
junk after the plan i
brian d foy wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Klausner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
again to Gabor Szabo for implementing it).
(BTW, there was quite a drop in the CPANTS game highscore lists, as lots
of dists don't
David Golden wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
But with that in mind, I still don't see much point in running them at
install-time, so lately I've modified my pod.t test so that it's skip
message is now "skipped: Author tests not required for installation"
or the like, and the tests now only run when
It's on its way to the CPAN. There's a tiny API change which probably won't
affect most folks (first Changes item), but I really needed to do this to
simplify the code.
0.22 13 September 2006
- Removed buggy support for multi-line chunks from streams. If your
streams
On 9/13/06, brian d foy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adriano
Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
> > LICENSE, but that's definitly more e
On 13 Sep 2006, at 19:28, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Adrian Howard wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006, at 05:37, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
(For the sarcasm impaired, if you're just going to store the whole
post-install source tarball you might as well just grab it from CPAN
again)
[snip]
Isn't the
Adrian Howard wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 2006, at 05:37, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> [snip]
>> (For the sarcasm impaired, if you're just going to store the whole
>> post-install source tarball you might as well just grab it from CPAN
>> again)
> [snip]
>
> Isn't the post-install source tree potentially
brian d foy wrote:
Thinking about this further and talking to a few people about it, the
only place that makes any sense is the source code file itself. After
installation, the rest of the distribution will disappear. The license
has to stay with the source.
Nit -- .pod files also stay around a
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adriano
Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
> > LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
>
> Tell one place where people should l
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Salve J Nilsen wrote:
>
> >> Any metric that catches bad things, particularly bad technical
> >> things, is going to be just fine.
> >> Metrics that try to push "good" behavior are fraught with
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Klausner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
> again to Gabor Szabo for implementing it).
> (BTW, there was quite a drop in the CPANTS game highscore lists, as lots
> of dists don't come with a l
On 13 Sep 2006, at 05:37, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
(For the sarcasm impaired, if you're just going to store the whole
post-install source tarball you might as well just grab it from
CPAN again)
[snip]
Isn't the post-install source tree potentially different in useful
ways from the
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, the metric currently checks if there's a 'license' field in
META.yml
META.yml is supposed to get most of distribution information in a
format that it is safe and comprehensible. No need for further
heuristics. It is a good thing that t
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 16:06:42 +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> It should also check if the license field in META.yml is one of the
> 'approved' licenses, I guess this would be the list of words that can be
> used in Module::Build.
This list is lame, it's not a canonical format. For example "perl"
i
On Sep 13, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
Maybe this metric should even check if there's a license in META.yml
AND a
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
If you're going that way, also check for a qr/LICENSE/i file in the
distribution directory.
Maybe this metric should even check if there's a license in M
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
Maybe this metric should even check if there's a license in META.yml
AND a pod heading namen LICENSE, so that humans and tool
Hi!
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:24:16PM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
> Oww, that includes all of mine, even though they state clearly in the
> docs that they are distributed under the perl license.
>
> I assume this looks at the META.yml license key? I guess it's time to
> take ExtUtils-MakeMa
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:07:28PM -0500, Chris Dolan wrote:
I posted all of my thoughts on the Perl-QA wiki here:
http://perl-qa.yi.org/index.php/CPANTS_Quality_Goals
Cool!
I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
again to Gabor Sza
Hi!
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:07:28PM -0500, Chris Dolan wrote:
> I posted all of my thoughts on the Perl-QA wiki here:
> http://perl-qa.yi.org/index.php/CPANTS_Quality_Goals
Cool!
I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
again to Gabor Szabo for implementing it)
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Michael Peters wrote:
There are lots of perl modules tied to various projects that don't
>> exist independently on CPAN.
But frankly, if you are uploading modules to CPAN that can't possibly
ever be installed with the CPAN client because you have to go install
modules fro
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
On the other hand, the downside with this is that modules could
well have URIs that take actions in them,
*pulls out HTTP RFC*
*starts beating random bad programmers over the head with it*
`GET` SHOULD BE SAFE AND IDEMPOTENT!
`GET` SHOULD BE SAFE AND IDEM
24 matches
Mail list logo
