Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:44:37 +0100, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
While checking the reports of my modules, I see from time to time
FAIL
reports that weren't sent to me by mail. Some of these reports were
even useful to me.
You could try i
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:44:37 +0100, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
> While checking the reports of my modules, I see from time to time FAIL
> reports that weren't sent to me by mail. Some of these reports were
> even useful to me.
You could try if MARCEL/
David Cantrell a écrit :
There is one crucial difference between the CPAN testers and "real"
spammers though - we actually care what authors think. Upgrading to a
version of CPAN::Reporter that supports the skip file is on my to-do
list, and you can rest assured that PETDANCE will be the second
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:47:48AM -0500, David Golden wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008 10:50 AM, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When a bot complains to me that some arbitrary ancient module has long
> > since been abandoned, doesn't work under 5.6.1, it's noise regardless
> > of delivery forma
Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jan 29, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Rockway wrote:
>
>> To be honest, it's usually humans that provide the least useful
>> reports. The bots do a much better job.
>
>
> If they're using CPAN::Reporter, then it's all the same.
Humans include a lot of e
On Jan 29, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Rockway wrote:
To be honest, it's usually humans that provide the least useful
reports. The bots do a much better job.
If they're using CPAN::Reporter, then it's all the same.
Bots do not report actual use cases. They report imagined,
speculative u
Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:10 AM, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
>
>> Maybe the most practical option is still the global skip file
>> mentioned by
>> David Golden. Uninterested people would get a single unsollicited
>> email,
>> and would need to opt-out once
On Jan 29, 2008 11:53 AM, Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You mean there isn't a backdoor in the smokers code to allow it to upgrade
> itself when it detects that it is smoking a newer version of itself? :-)
Don't tempt me. ;-)
Of course, the CPAN::Reporter test suite has become a len
On Jan 29, 2008 11:14 AM, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except that the global skip file would need to apply to individual
> bots, not the entire cpan-testers architecture. Again, I have no
> problem with human reports. It's the bots I mind. I also expect that
> at some point there mi
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:47:48AM -0500, David Golden wrote:
> You mean rather than a skipfile, have an opt-in file? I think that's
> a good suggestion. I could add that to CPAN::Reporter fairly quickly,
> but someone will have to go upgrade CPANPLUS or CPAN::YACSmoke and
> then we have to get
On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:47 AM, David Golden wrote:
It is spam -- in a sense. It's generally unsolicited. It's
historical tradition to cc authors -- which is why I want to move away
from email and let notification be an author's choice from a central
source.
Yes, absolutely. Then I don't re
On Jan 29, 2008 10:50 AM, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When a bot complains to me that some arbitrary ancient module has long
> since been abandoned, doesn't work under 5.6.1, it's noise regardless
> of delivery format. It is unsolicited noise. "Just delete it" and
> "other people lik
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 10:14:08AM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:10 AM, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
>
>> Maybe the most practical option is still the global skip file mentioned by
>> David Golden. Uninterested people would get a single unsollicited email,
>> and would need
On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:10 AM, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
Maybe the most practical option is still the global skip file
mentioned by
David Golden. Uninterested people would get a single unsollicited
email,
and would need to opt-out once only.
Except that the global skip file would need
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 09:50:21AM -0600, Andy Lester wrote:
>
> Again, I ask: I would like bot notification to be opt-in only.
>
I guess other are like me, and are too lazy to opt-in, and like to
get the occasional FAIL. Of course, I do not have that many modules,
so they don't come back to haunt
Hmm, yeah. That sort of ties-in to the whole thing where cpantesters
has implemented web services over SMTP. So, you're probably getting
mail straight from the tester rather than e.g. the web server checking
your preferences after receiving the POST and before sending you mail,
There's that, b
On Jan 29, 2008 3:16 AM, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, yeah. That sort of ties-in to the whole thing where cpantesters
> has implemented web services over SMTP. So, you're probably getting
> mail straight from the tester rather than e.g. the web server checking
> your preferences
# from Andy Lester
# on Monday 28 January 2008 23:37:
>On Jan 29, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>> The results are there for everybody to see.
>
>I mean in my inbox.
Hmm, yeah. That sort of ties-in to the whole thing where cpantesters
has implemented web services over SMTP. So, you'r
On Jan 29, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
I'm not disputing that the smoke bots are useful. I just want choice
rather than having results shoved at me unwanted.
I'm not sure why or how you should have a choice about the smoke
results
being posted. The results are there for ever
# from Andy Lester
# on Monday 28 January 2008 17:29:
>I'm not disputing that the smoke bots are useful. I just want choice
> rather than having results shoved at me unwanted.
I'm not sure why or how you should have a choice about the smoke results
being posted. The results are there for eve
Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > mkdir blib/lib/Test: No space left on device at /usr/perl5.6.2/lib/
> > 5.6.2/ExtUtils/Command.pm line 259
> > *** Error code 255
>
> So now I have a permanent note of "FAIL" in the records because your
> automated bot ran out of drive space. I can't p
* If you don't give a fig about some version of perl like 5.6.1, then
specify "use 5.006002" in your PL files
Why would I want to go re-release all the modules under my care, many
of which no longer have maintainers, often because they've died
(literally), to quiet noise from an illegitimate
A minor note on CPAN::Reporter and a broader comment on the problem of
unwelcome/inaccurate smoking.
On 29 Jan 2008 01:11:20 +0100, Slaven Rezic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recently turned PERL_MM_USE_DEFAULT on, to decrease the amount on
> interactive questions while doing the smokes. It turns
So now I have a permanent note of "FAIL" in the records because
your automated bot ran out of drive space. I can't put into words
how much I appreciate that.
I think you're taking this a bit too seriously here. It's a bit
annoying, but not a disaster.
I didn't say it was a disaster.
Th
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Andy Lester wrote:
mkdir blib/lib/Test: No space left on device at
/usr/perl5.6.2/lib/5.6.2/ExtUtils/Command.pm line 259
*** Error code 255
So now I have a permanent note of "FAIL" in the records because your
automated bot ran out of drive space. I can't put into words
mkdir blib/lib/Test: No space left on device at /usr/perl5.6.2/lib/
5.6.2/ExtUtils/Command.pm line 259
*** Error code 255
So now I have a permanent note of "FAIL" in the records because your
automated bot ran out of drive space. I can't put into words how much
I appreciate that.
I'd su
26 matches
Mail list logo
