Shmuel Fomberg wrote:

Because it gives the feeling that we support them.
I think that there is someone who is running a smoker on Perl 5.6. do we
want authors to get error reports because some feature that they used
does not exists or was buggy on that version?

These reports clearly indicate that module is not supported on this
particular version and platform. I don't see how 100% of FAIL/UNKNOWN
reports can give someone the feeling of any support.

It says "the module is having problems on that platform, but we are
aware of it and it will be fixed. someday"

It never says it.

If the version does not exists, it says "what are you talking about? I
have never heard of that version".

It never says it either. I know well-working distributions without any tests 
(not that I like this situation but anyway).

If you don't like to support any older version, why don't you just add "use 5.008009;" in Makefile.PL/Build.PL, or to META.yml? It's the most correct way to tell about what's the minimum version supported, and it's really easy.

I'm not advocating of throwing everything before 5.12, but I think that
version 5.8.9 if the earliest we should accept.
I know one Fortune 50 company who runs Perl 5.8.5 in production.
I know one that uses Perl 5.6. so?

So having test results for this version is helpful for those who use it.

I think that most misunderstandings about CPAN Testers appear because module authors think that CPAN Testers is a tool to irritate authors, and sometimes a free auto-tester. But in fact, it's about helping users decide whether this particular distribution runs on their version/platform or not.

--
Serguei Trouchelle

Reply via email to