Leon Brocard wrote: > I like the is_impolite / is_naughty ideas, and will roll them into the > next version. If you have a simple metric for a good cross-platform > filename, that'd be good.
I'll see what I can come up with. > I'm not sure about how you mean a "good" Changes. For a start, people > call them different things (Changes, CHANGES, ChangeLog etc.), and > format them differently. Yeah, this is probably too hard by the low-hanging fruit theory. I can normally tell a good Changes file from a poor one (for example, one that spells my name "Savage" ;-) but it is very hard to get a machine to recognize the difference. There is a poor man's Inline::C (whose name escapes me) that is lacking any Changes or README file or any documentation at all -- now, that would be easy to detect. > What is a good README? To be honest, now that we have web interfaces > to docs on search.cpan.org I don't think that READMEs are terribly > important. Agreed. > > 2) POD tester. Use Test::Pod/Pod::Coverage, say, on all POD in a > > distribution. > > I don't want to eval the whole of CPAN. Maybe we could get the CPAN > Testers to do this? > > > 4) Test suite analyser. How good is the test suite? Use perhaps > > Devel::Cover to determine how much of the code is covered by > > the distribution's test suite. > > Sure, convince CPAN Testers to do this ;-) > > > 3) Static Perl code analyser. I suppose PerlTidy, Module::Info, > > B::Lint may be helpful. Any others? > > To achieve what? It doesn't have to eval the whole of CPAN to be useful. I see the mythical Module::Scrutinize as perhaps a little orthogonal to Module::CPANTS, as something that may help individual CPAN authors produce a higher quality product, running their CPAN module through it pointing out things that might be improved. It may also be handy to help in-depth module reviewers produce reviews with more substance than most of those posted to cpanratings -- which I still quite like, BTW, despite the smutty DBI reviews (on the other hand, I learnt some new slang terms I'd never heard of before). > > 6) Prerequisite checker. > > What would you check, exactly? That the prerequisites in Makefile.PL/Build.PL/META.yml match the code. > > 7) Version checker. > > What would you check, exactly? That multiple versions in multiple files match. > It's great that somebody else thinks that metrics is a good idea. > I thought it was just Schwern, Thomas and I! ;-) Four completely normal peeps there. ;-) Judging by the popularity of cricket and golf statistics, I think there are a lot of lurkers too. /-\ http://search.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Search - Looking for more? Try the new Yahoo! Search
