> On Mar 21, 2017, at 1:48 AM, Kent Fredric <[email protected]> wrote: > > And here's the build.log cpanm-reporter sees: > > https://gist.github.com/kentfredric/98a238854a1fd3b513c3e4875fb98f4f > >> cpanm-reporter can't know you altered the dist, so I would really suggest >> not sending in reports for dists you've altered, as they could be more >> confusing than insightful: You sent in two reports from a Perl without "." >> in @INC, but one failed because of it, and one succeeded in spite of it. >> Does the second report indicate that "." got added to @INC somehow? > > Its not exactly a conscious choice, but a side effect. Granted 2 > reports would be clearer, ... just several orders of magnitude harder > to run. > >> As I understand cpanm-reporter, you sent in 2 test reports: one configure >> failed (missing "." in @INC), one passed. I can't think of any way for the >> configure step to fail and yet the installing client will still try to >> continue. > > Here, I guess its a problem that the tool assessing the log can't > tell,or can't decide, because the markers of both a fail and a success > happen in the same log file.
My opinion would be, yes, that the reporter tool would need to send in two reports in this particular situation, leaving the original issue of "what status to assign to the report" as "the furthest step completed without error".
