A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-13 23:05]:
This issue also has frustrated me for some time, but I don't
think that we should be considering deleting reports. Reports
are just facts -- they have no value basis. Yes, people may make
judgments about the robustness of a module based on pass/fail
percentages, but I don't think we should alter the raw data.
Errm, here’s a question: in which way does it benefit *any* use
of the raw data to preserve those bogus reports, even annotated?
I can’t think of any reason why anyone would ever need to know
about those, but maybe my imagination is limited. Can you list
some?
It's a record of what happened to a user -- including a record of what
kinds of modules people do and don't have in the wild. I never like to
see data like that thrown away.
I'd suppose I could see failures like this (caused by CPANPLUS) recoded
to "N/A" -- or something like "Dubious" -- if they can be clearly
identified. That way the full record is always available.
Regards,
David Golden
