On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 08:17:56AM -0400, David Golden wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Joe McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I do that for GraphViz::Data::Structure (for graphviz) - and I still
get FAILs. So how does one get round that?
You have:
if (!$dot_version) {
die
On Sep 1, 2008, at 17:22, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Ask the maintainers of M::B, EU::MM and M::I to all export a
`halt` function that does just this? That would also provide
a convenient spot in the respective modules’ docs for related
CPAN Testers arcana, so people wouldn’t have to stumble
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 07:11:12 David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:26:11PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
(Step three is probably to stop rewarding people for sending ever-more
reports and start rewarding people for sending *useful* reports.)
There's a reward? Damn, I'd
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:17 PM, David E. Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ask the maintainers of M::B, EU::MM and M::I to all export a
`halt` function that does just this? That would also provide
a convenient spot in the respective modules' docs for related
CPAN Testers arcana, so people
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:41 PM, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://perl.grango.org/testers.html
Helpful hint: you can get the top spot if you forge reports and don't mess
with all of that nasty downloading, configuring, compiling, and testing.
Just send PASS, FAIL, or NA for random
Christopher H. Laco wrote:
chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:01:44 David Golden wrote:
You encourage what you measure,
In theory, yes. In practice, that hasn't been the experience to date.
Testers over 70K:
1 587018 Chris Williams (BINGOS)
2 318527 Andreas J. König
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 10:48:38 David Golden wrote:
Instead of the annoyance of authors writing warn $foo and exit 0,
now they'll need to use configure_requires in META.yml to demand an
up-to-date version of Module::Build. And it still won't work on an
older Perl with an older CPAN or
# from David Golden
# on Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:01:
You encourage what you measure,
In theory, yes. In practice, that hasn't been the experience to date.
...
Being snide about peoples volunteer efforts isn't particularly
constructive.
And you discourage what you tax.
--Eric
--
Moving
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Christopher H. Laco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, the second one does error in the middle of the output...barely.
Had the errors been after the 50k, the report would be doubly useless:
[Output truncated after 50K]
does no good when the sole purpose of such
David Golden wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Christopher H. Laco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, the second one does error in the middle of the output...barely.
Had the errors been after the 50k, the report would be doubly useless:
[Output truncated after 50K]
does no good when the
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Does the report identify an actual failure for the common use case of CPAN
installation or does it identify a failure in configuring the CPAN Testers
client?
* Does the report identify a known failure already reported
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:24 PM, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... but every time I see yet another arcane cantrip to add to my projects to
work around brokenness in CPAN Testers clients, a little bit more of my
motivation to care slips away.
You only need one and you'll never need to
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:17:49AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Sep 1, 2008, at 17:22, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Ask the maintainers of M::B, EU::MM and M::I to all export a
`halt` function that does just this? That would also provide
a convenient spot in the respective modules? docs for
On Sep 2, 2008, at 2:04 PM, David Golden wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:24 PM, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... but every time I see yet another arcane cantrip to add to my
projects to
work around brokenness in CPAN Testers clients, a little bit more
of my
motivation to care slips
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:41:08AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 07:11:12 David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:26:11PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
(Step three is probably to stop rewarding people for sending ever-more
reports and start rewarding people for
On Sep 2, 2008, at 2:55 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
Helpful hint: there's a difference between getting your name listed on
an obscure web page and a reward.
A reward would be something like a bar of chocolate, or a pay rise.
Depends on who you are.
xoa
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
It's frustrating that so much of the perl-qa traffic is about CPAN
Testers, a project that I'm not particularly interested in because
they are not at all interested in me.
Thanks,
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 12:45:19 David Cantrell wrote:
And no matter how much certain people might bitch and whine about how
users ought to upgrade their toolchain, the fact is that they don't. I
wish they did, but they don't.
If the CPAN Testers client already requires developers to
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 02:53:30PM -0500, Graham Barr wrote:
I would contest that the Makefile.PL or Build.PL cannot
be known to be a failure of the distribution, so the Artificial
Intelligence that you have programmed into CPAN testers is flawed.
That's why I default to *not*
--- On Tue, 2/9/08, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like Andy Lester suggests, I'm obviously not the target
audience of CPAN
Testers. I don't believe normal users are the target
audience of CPAN
Testers. Who is?
I'll hold up my hand. For all of the bogus reports I get, I'd rather
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-02 22:40]:
For all of the bogus reports I get, I'd rather get the bogus
ones along with the good ones than nothing at all. I'd much
prefer that I find out immediately if there's a disaster rather
than have someone email me and say this broke our software!
++
On 2 Sep 2008, at 16:23, chromatic wrote:
Like Andy Lester suggests, I'm obviously not the target audience of
CPAN
Testers. I don't believe normal users are the target audience of CPAN
Testers. Who is?
How do you define normal users. At work we're normal users - for our
definition and
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 03:17:56PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
It's called [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence
Blessed are the pessimists, for they test their backups
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:41 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
It's called [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's great. So can this all be taken over there, please?
Thanks,
Andy
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com =
Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-02 22:40]:
For all of the bogus reports I get, I'd rather get the bogus
ones along with the good ones than nothing at all. I'd much
prefer that I find out immediately if there's a disaster rather
than have someone email me and say
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
There is one:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If people would take their complaints and brainstorms about CPAN
Testers there first, then it wouldn't clutter perl-qa.
Of
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
exit if $ENV{AUTOMATED_TESTING};
Which removed the usefulness of those that do testing correctly and submit
useful reports
My point was that authors can opt-out if keeping up is too annoying.
I would hope that authors
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 01:23:31PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
If the CPAN Testers client already requires developers to modify their
distributions to tease useful information out of reports, then CPAN Testers
has failed at being an accurate representation of how distributions fare for
normal
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 14:09:04 David Golden wrote:
Remember -- this whole thread started with why exit 0? Is that
really too much to ask an author with particularly unusual
requirements to learn and use?
Changing the way some 6000 registered authors work to meet the needs of one
On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:23 PM, chromatic wrote:
Changing the way some 6000 registered authors work to meet the needs
of one
particular domain purportedly for their benefit seems to be the
wrong way
around, at least to me.
Does anyone on CPAN Testers have any idea what their constituencies
On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:10 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
I already know that my distributions don't work if you don't
install the
dependencies
I'm pretty damned sure that this a straw man. Can you point at any
regular tester who *right now* is regularly failing to follow the
dependency chain?
I am personally quite satisfied with the CPAN Testers though I do think that
there is too much noise (false FAIL reports) which mean the average CPAN
user who is not familiar with the situation will be misled.
AFAIK Barbie and co are working on a better schema for the database that
soon will
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand I don't understand why was this sent:
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2008/08/msg2102300.html
It is trying to test a module on 5.6.2 while the module declares both
in META.yml and in
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 04:38:20PM -0500, Graham Barr wrote:
On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:10 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
I already know that my distributions don't work if you don't
install the
dependencies
I'm pretty damned sure that this a straw man. Can you point at any
regular tester who *right
# from Gabor Szabo
# on Tuesday 02 September 2008 14:42:
I'm pretty damned sure that this a straw man. Can you point at any
regular tester who *right now* is regularly failing to follow the
dependency chain?
actually both my recent modules get tons of FAIL reports as they only
have Build.PL
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 04:38:20PM -0500, Graham Barr wrote:
On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:10 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
I already know that my distributions don't work if you don't
install the
dependencies
I'm pretty damned sure that this a straw man. Can you point at any
regular tester who *right
# from David Cantrell
# on Tuesday 02 September 2008 17:23:
Seeing that there's no
Makefile.PL in that directory, it creates one for you, and then
everything goes pear-shaped because that Makefile.PL doesn't list any
dependencies.
Would putting everything goes pear-shaped in the report title
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
$ tar tzvf perl-ldap-0.37.tar.gz
?rw-rw-rw- root/root52 2008-08-28 12:52:15 pax_global_header unknown
fil
e type `g'
drwxrwxr-x root/root 0 2008-08-28 12:52:15 perl-ldap-0.37/
-rw-rw-r-- root/root32 2008-08-28 12:52:15
* Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-02 22:20]:
Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
So there is Perl-QA, TAPx-Dev (where I’ve been dragging my feet
to subscribe), the IETF TAP list, the Module::Build and CPANPLUS
lists, and now cpan-testers-discuss. I am
On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:44 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Seriously? First you say you want them to play in their own
sandbox, then you say they’ve never asked anyone?
Yes, both of those are true.
Posting to a mailing list about how CPAN Testers' internals works is
not at all the same as
# from Jan Dubois
# on Tuesday 02 September 2008 17:42:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
$ tar tzvf perl-ldap-0.37.tar.gz
?rw-rw-rw- root/root52 2008-08-28 12:52:15 pax_global_header
unknown file type `g'
drwxrwxr-x root/root 0 2008-08-28 12:52:15 perl-ldap-0.37/
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-02 19:55]:
Instead of the annoyance of authors writing warn $foo and exit
0, now they'll need to use configure_requires in META.yml to
demand an up-to-date version of Module::Build.
Sigh. Conceded. I keep forgetting that when talking about the
* Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-03 02:55]:
On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:44 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Seriously? First you say you want them to play in their own
sandbox, then you say they’ve never asked anyone?
Yes, both of those are true.
Yes, taking separately and literally, they are
43 matches
Mail list logo
