On 11 May 2015, at 01:47, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
So the quality of a dist could be measured indirectly by the failure rate of
its dependents.
This was kind of the basis of the “River Smoker” idea that Tux and and I
discussed late on the last day of the QAH:
On 11 May 2015 at 19:20, Neil Bowers neil.bow...@cogendo.com wrote:
look at 2 or more CPAN Testers fails where the only difference is an
upriver version number.
my point didn't pertain to upriver versions changing, but the observation
that upriver modules can have buggy code that is only
On 11 May 2015 at 12:37, Neil Bowers neil.bow...@cogendo.com wrote:
These are pretty simple, and have some problems, so I’m hoping someone
might come up with something more useful.
Random thought while reading: backflow could be a thing to check for.
Some dists don't have tests, and still
One of the goals of the CPAN River model is to get us to focus on cleaning up
the river, starting at the headwaters first. To that end, I’ve been thinking
about how we might measure “river quality”, and have written up two ideas so
far:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Neil Bowers neil.bow...@cogendo.com
wrote:
These are pretty simple, and have some problems, so I’m hoping someone
might come up with something more useful.
It's really hard to examine specific cases with CT down at the moment, but
I think we could be
5 matches
Mail list logo
