Sad. I think this is a cultural issue which is mitigated in most professional
organizations when agile is adopted. In my experience, waterfall pits testers
against developers. In an agile environment that demarcation is blurred.
If I'm reading that report properly it appears as if the top of
On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:37 PM, chromatic wrote:
I don't care about backchannel communication between other authors
and CPAN
Testers, but how can you blame Shlomi for thinking that public
humiliation
isn't a vital component of Kwalitee? There's prior art:
On Thu, October 23, 2008 10:37 am, chromatic wrote:
I don't care about backchannel communication between other authors and
CPAN
Testers, but how can you blame Shlomi for thinking that public humiliation
isn't a vital component of Kwalitee? There's prior art:
On Thursday 23 October 2008 06:34:41 Ovid wrote:
That being said, why are you trying to publicly humiliate people by sending
this information to Perl-QA? I've contacted Perl-QA to try and find a smoke
author before, but not to name and shame. That just seems rude.
I don't care about
On Oct 23, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/hall_of_shame
That looks sorted by kwalitee and author. If we're shaming people,
author
name shouldn't be a factor. Could it be by kwalitee and most recent
release
date instead?
How about
On Thursday 23 October 2008 11:25:05 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
On Thu, October 23, 2008 10:37 am, chromatic wrote:
I don't care about backchannel communication between other authors and
CPAN Testers, but how can you blame Shlomi for thinking that public
humiliation isn't a vital
http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/hall_of_shame
It says Not Found
thanks domm
Gabor
