So, if I want to write a review of Net::SMTP, I'd do the following.
1. Use Module::Build, or ExtUtils::MakeMaker to create
Review::Net::SMTP::CHRISJ, or whatever.
2. Make sure I have my README.txt, CHANGES, and MANIFEST file.
3. Write my review in POD format, and throw in some META.yml indexing
On Jul 20, 2004, at 11:57 AM, Chris Josephes wrote:
So, if I want to write a review of Net::SMTP, I'd do the following.
1. Use Module::Build, or ExtUtils::MakeMaker to create
Review::Net::SMTP::CHRISJ, or whatever.
2. Make sure I have my README.txt, CHANGES, and MANIFEST file.
3. Write my review
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:50:37 -0500, Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was sort of hoping this idea would just die on its own, but now it
looks like people are actually getting ready to do it. In my opinion
this is a bad idea. I don't want a bunch of reviews all over CPAN
disguising
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Ken Williams wrote:
I was sort of hoping this idea would just die on its own, but now it
looks like people are actually getting ready to do it. In my opinion
this is a bad idea. I don't want a bunch of reviews all over CPAN
disguising themselves as modules. I also
Mark Stosberg wrote:
Maybe the convention could be:
Review::Text::Balanced::CPANUSERNAME
Good idea, but I think that is duplicated information. CPAN already
considers the uploaded user ID to be a part of the unique name of the
module. Two authors can upload a module with the same name; and
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 06:15:49PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
I nominate the
Review::*
Namespace for author-submitted module indexes and in-depth reviews, in
POD format. I think this has a number of advantages. Let's use the
infrastructure we already have, no?
Interesting, but what
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:10:02AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 06:15:49PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
I nominate the
Review::*
Namespace for author-submitted module indexes and in-depth reviews, in
POD format. I think this has a number of advantages. Let's use
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:57:10PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I think that it's not a great idea using
the real CPAN to do things other than distribute code. Reuse the
infrastructure by all means but the idea of mixing bundles, code, reviews
and whatever
Pardon my ignorance, but ...
What is the 'default phone-home behavior' in the Makefile.PL's about
which Randal was complaining?
Is it the author's 'Perlish' coding style, in which he places
statement-ending semicolons at the start of the line? Or something
else?
jimk
James Keenan writes:
Pardon my ignorance, but ...
What is the 'default phone-home behavior' in the Makefile.PL's about
which Randal was complaining?
The author wished to keep track of how widely his modules were used --
at least partially as motivation for bothering to write them.
Randy W. Sims writes:
Not long ago I was exploring the cpanratings site and discovered the
unhelpful rampage by one particular reviewer
http://cpanratings.perl.org/a/181.
Why do you think Randal's comments are unhelpful? Personally whenever
I'm (considering) downloading a module I haven't
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:40:03PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 19:26]:
Some of them _are_ registered, but that document you're
referring to hasn't been regenerated since 2002/08/27! I wish
the CPAN
On 7/14/2004 5:51 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:40:03PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 19:26]:
Some of them _are_ registered, but that document you're
referring to hasn't been regenerated since
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Randy W. Sims wrote:
As for the best of the best, I still believe there is a lot of merrit in
the list built from dependencies idea.
Only in some areas. For example, the top templating modules are probably,
TT, HTML::Template, Mason. How many modules depend on any of
14 matches
Mail list logo
