David Golden wrote: > I have to second this. There really shouldn't be separate "conforms > to 1.0" and "conforms to 1.2" metrics and so on. What happens as the > spec evolves? Unless the spec is broken, encouraging specific "latest > spec compliant" is just churn and Kwalitee breaks if there's ever a > change that isn't backwards compatible. The test should be whether > the META.yml is "well-formed" -- meaning that it's valid according to > the spec that it declares (or 1.0 otherwise).
And realistically, Ken, Adam and I (maintainers of the major install tools) really control most of the META.yml generation anyway. If we don't upgrade, you don't upgrade.
