Adam Kennedy wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
Tels wrote:
If I were to run CPANTS, I would drop that module like a hot potato
at a summer campfire.
Oh, and reduce everyone's K rating involved in the little prank by
one :)
I thought the whole point of CPANTS was to be useful to authors, not
useful to the CPANTS cabal. So if I want to game my CPANTS rating why
would you care?
Why should you HAVE to game your CPANTS rating?
Why should anyone else care if I feel the urge?
> Why shouldn't a properly
written module get a full score?
Because, for example, no-one else has yet used it as a pre-requisite?
Because if was written before POD testing became fashionable? Because
it tests its documentation in ways that CPANTS doesn't expect? Perhaps
because it's doing something batshit and won't work with strictness on?
Because it's machine-generated code and turning on strictness would be
pointless?
Or make is_prereq SO easy to game that it's a nonissue? Why should a
module depended upon by another author be ranked any higher than one
that isn't.
I can see why it might be ranked higher, but that is nothing to do with
ranking its quality, of which kwalitee is meant to be an approximation.
--
David Cantrell
