Hi!
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:35:14PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> What the hell is the "run" thing in the latest run... is the run just
> half-way through or something?
that was a bug in the templates. resolved now.
(FYI: 'run' stores when the data was analysed (using what version of
cpants
Hi!
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:51:06PM +0200, Philippe "BooK" Bruhat wrote:
> Le mardi 23 mai 2006 ? 21:56, Thomas Klausner ?crivait:
> >
> > And no, I won't take the fun out of CPANTS.
>
> Then why did you filter out the Acme modules from the prereq lists? Mmm?
>
> For example, see http://cp
Oh, and by the way...
What the hell is the "run" thing in the latest run... is the run just
half-way through or something?
Adam K
I'm now settled in my new job (and new appartment), the new and
improved CPANTS is running on a new server (provided by yi.org, thanks
again to Tyler MacDonald!). So basically all the time I can spend on
CPANTS will go into new tests (eg a check if used modules (minus stuff
in Module::Co
Hi!
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:51:06PM +0200, Philippe "BooK" Bruhat wrote:
> Le mardi 23 mai 2006 ? 21:56, Thomas Klausner ?crivait:
> >
> > And no, I won't take the fun out of CPANTS.
>
> Then why did you filter out the Acme modules from the prereq lists? Mmm?
>
> For example, see http://cp
Le mardi 23 mai 2006 à 21:56, Thomas Klausner écrivait:
>
> And no, I won't take the fun out of CPANTS.
Then why did you filter out the Acme modules from the prereq lists? Mmm?
For example, see http://cpants.perl.org/dist/Bot-MetaSyntactic
and http://cpants.perl.org/dist/Acme-MetaSyntactic-Re
- Original Message
> From: David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> formatted. E.g. I believe this is sufficient to get the Kwalitee point:
>
> # t/pod_coverage.t
> __END__
> use Test::Pod::Coverage;
What? You think that's bad? Here are three lines from Acme::Code::Police:
$trick_that_n
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-23T12:46:13]
> So I guess its down to this: pick a goal. Either drop the gaming aspects or
> drop any remaining pretense that its a measurement of module quality. Since
> the whole kwalitee thing is pretty flimsy to begin with, I'd go with just
> m
On May 23, 2006, at 9:24 PM, James E Keenan wrote:
I've mostly ignored CPANTS, in large part because I refuse to
include t/pod.t and t/pod_coverage.t in my distributions because
they don't pick up the format in which some of my best
documentation is written. And refusing to include those
David Golden wrote:
How does "is_prereq" improve quality?
I've mostly ignored CPANTS, in large part because I refuse to include
t/pod.t and t/pod_coverage.t in my distributions because they don't pick
up the format in which some of my best documentation is written. And
refusing to inc
Hi!
I missed most of this discussion due to work and a very important
shopping trip to IKEA (well, maybe not that important, but I'll let you
argue this out with my girlfriend...)
I'm also a bit exhausted now, so here are just some semi-random comments
on this thread:
- I think the biggest probl
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 07:35, Chris Dolan wrote:
> is_prereq is usually a proxy metric for software maturity: if someone
> thinks your module is good enough that he would rather depend on it
> than reinvent it, then it's probably a better-than-average module on
> CPAN.
Contra: File::Find.
On 5/23/06, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you get authors to actually look at the CPANTS information
> and
> make corrections? Well, we like competition. Make it a game!
>
> So it was you -- or somebody impersonating you on this list -- who
> managed to persuade me that a
On 5/23/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How does "is_prereq" improve quality?
Can we avoid getting side-tracked by individual indicators? Move it to
another thread, please.
On May 23, 2006, at 10:15 AM, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
is_prereq is usually a vote of confidence,
I respectfully disagree completely.
It's been more than once that I did *not* install a module because it
required a module that I did not trust, either because of (the
programming
style of) the au
On May 23, 2006, at 10:34 AM, David Golden wrote:
Chris Dolan wrote:
... just checking for the presence of a t/pod_coverage.t file
(which is a weak proxy for POD quality, but dramatically easier to
measure).
It doesn't check for the existence of a t/pod_coverage.t file. It
checks that a
Chris Dolan wrote:
is_prereq is usually a proxy metric for software maturity: if someone
thinks your module is good enough that he would rather depend on it than
reinvent it, then it's probably a better-than-average module on CPAN.
is_prereq is usually a vote of confidence, so it is likely a g
On Tue, 23 May 2006 09:35:27 -0500, Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 23, 2006, at 8:39 AM, David Golden wrote:
>
> > How does "is_prereq" improve quality?
> >
> > Or, put differently, how does measuring something that an author
> > can't control create an incentive to improve?
>
On May 23, 2006, at 8:39 AM, David Golden wrote:
How does "is_prereq" improve quality?
Or, put differently, how does measuring something that an author
can't control create an incentive to improve?
is_prereq is usually a proxy metric for software maturity: if someone
thinks your module is
Andy Lester wrote:
How do you get authors to actually look at the CPANTS information and
make corrections? Well, we like competition. Make it a game!
So it was you -- or somebody impersonating you on this list -- who
managed to persuade me that actually Cpants being a game was a good
thing
How do you get authors to actually look at the CPANTS information
and
make corrections? Well, we like competition. Make it a game!
So it was you -- or somebody impersonating you on this list -- who
managed to persuade me that actually Cpants being a game was a good
thing!
The key is tha
Michael G Schwern writes:
> There's a problem. CPANTS is not a game. If you make it a game, the
> system does not work.
Hi there. I made a similarish point on this list about a year ago, to
which you replied:
http://groups.google.co.uk/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your reply included:
Finally, the
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:18:48 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I haven't looked at what's going on in CPANTS for a while but Andy's post
> made me have a look and oh dear. There's a problem. CPANTS is not a game.
> If you make it a game, the system does not work.
Likewise it should not test
23 matches
Mail list logo
