I'd particularly be interested in the notion of 'the other to help module authors improve their modules'---I don't think you can have too much feedback when it comes to writing software that someone else might use.
--hsm > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy W. Sims [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 3:45 PM > To: khemir nadim > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Perl's Sacrifice Stone > > > khemir nadim wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I started a vonlontary review on Perl Monks. I don't know if > it's the best > > place but since they have reviews I thought it would be a good place to > > start with (and I couldn't think of a better place). It hasn't given any > > result so far :-) . If some of you would be nice enough to > review the module > > I put there or put a module that they want to be reviewed, that > might start > > things up. > > Hmm, we have: > > 1) Simon's code review ladder: > <http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/code-review-ladder> > > 2) Ask's CPAN Ratings: <http://cpanratings.perl.org/> > > 3) Perl Monks' Reviews: <http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node=Reviews> > > Each has a slightly different focus, but there is some overlap. A part > of me wonders if they should be at least loosely linked together instead > of remaining 3 independant but related review tools for authors & users; > maybe one review site with two faces, one to help module users find > modules and the other to help module authors improve their modules. > > Randy. >
