> On 2013-11-21, at 9:06 AM, David Cantrell wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:29:37PM +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote: >> >> The most important issue to address is why should we prefer metacpan to >> search.cpan. You don't cover this at all.
I did not cover that as I was not trying to convince anyone that MetaCPAN is better for them than sco. I wanted to get those, who already prefer MetaCPAN, to have a list of things they can do if they would like to see more people reach MetaCPAN. The whole thing was triggered by the question Todd posted in reply to my earlier mail. But, as you are not the first one who raised this question I've started to collect some advantages of MetaCPAN, and I'll try to also collect the places where it is inferior to sco. I'll put them together as a blog post and if time permits (and it probably won't) I'll check if the latter items each have an open ticket on the MetaCPAN bug tracker. In addition to what Olaf already wrote here are a few advantages I found: For the casual user: * More modern look, I know there are people who prefer the good old IBM blue, but to many people the look of MetaCPAN is more pleasant * TOC can be eliminated (see Toggle Table of Contents) * Listing dependencies of the module - what else do I have to install? * Reverse dependencies - which modules use this module? * Shows the latest changes on the release page of each distribution with automatic links to RT tickets. For the more in-depth user: * MetaCPAN is Open Source * It is Actively maintained * It Provides an API that can David, from your post I am not sure if you prefer sco or just wanted to enhance this discussion, but if the former, would you share what do you prefer in sco? Gabor
