Hi!
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 03:16:35PM -0400, David Golden wrote:
There are handful of things on CPAN that are just zipped .pm files. I
cpants says:
cpants= select extension,count(*) from dist group by extension ;
extension | count
---+---
tar.gz| 14762
tgz | 241
Hi all,
Module::Build hasn't shipped a proper release for a good while, and a
few alphas have gone out since then (including the one in 5.10.0). Now
I find myself apparently expected to ship it.
My examination of the .meta files in the cpan says 9095 distributions
have a META.yml with
# from David Golden
# on Wednesday 03 September 2008 14:09:
if ... CPAN Testers is ...
to help authors improve quality
rather than ...
to give users a guarantee about ... any given platform.
... high quality author -- ... tester has a broken or misconfigured
toolchain The false
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:24:34 -0700, Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That is different than a tarball though. Does the script installation
have to be given up in order to eliminate the ambiguous behavior in the
case of a dist tarball?
Good point. I can probably limit it to cases
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of these proposal would be easier in CPAN Testers 2.0, which will
provide reports as structured data instead of email text, but if exit
0 is a straw that is breaking the Perl camel's back now, then we
can't ignore 1.0 to
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:56 AM, Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-j2 is invalid for ./Build and you shouldn't use it with it. Alternatively,
you can use perl Makefile.PL ; make ; , etc., which is also supported by
the Error distribution.
But as it stands, you're giving many false
Two cents from someone who appreciates the hell out of the CPAN testing
service and eagerly awaits new reports every time I release a new version
of a module.
However, from author's perspective, if a report is legitimate (and
assuming they care), they really only need to hear it once. Having
On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
So the more successful CPAN Testers is in attracting new testers, the
more duplicate FAIL reports authors are likely to receive, which
makes
them less likely to pay attention to them.
Sorry, but paying attention is the author's job.
On Thursday 04 September 2008 01:19:44 Eric Wilhelm wrote:
Let's pretend that I'm a real jerk of an author and I only care about
whether my code installs on a perl 5.8.8+ (a *real* perl -- no funky
vendor patches) with a fully updated and properly configured toolchain
and the clock set to
On Thursday 04 September 2008 08:30:19 Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Sorry, but paying attention is the author's job. A fail is something that
should be fixed, period, regardless of the number of them.
My job is editor, not programmer. Also novelist -- but again, not programmer.
Certainly not
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 10:09:20AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
I fail to understand ...
that much is obvious
... the mechanism by which CPAN Testers has seemingly removed
the ability of testers to report bugs to the correct places.
What a lovely straw man! Even nicer than the
Sorry, but paying attention is the author's job. A fail is something
that should be fixed, period, regardless of the number of them.
According to who? Who's to say what my job as an author is?
Obviously I should be semantically careful: job and author are
overloaded words. How about
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:50 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
I fail to understand ...
that much is obvious
And here we have the core problem. chromatic, among others, have
expressed frustration about CPAN Testers. The reaction has never been
positive. Here, chromatic is insulted for simply
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fail to understand the mechanism by which CPAN Testers has seemingly removed
the ability of testers to report bugs to the correct places. For example,
I think it's a mistake to set this up as just an author-vs-tester
zero-sum
I may do so because I take the quality and utility of my software
seriously, but do not mistake that for anything which may instill in you
any sort of entitlement. That is an excellent way not to get what you
want from me.
It's not an entitlement, it's a shared goal of making Perl better.
On Thursday 04 September 2008 11:30:51 David Golden wrote:
It shouldn't be any big deal to report a failure -- once -- to an
author. That's just the normal bug-report cycle as an author might
get from any human user. Author can look into it (if they care to),
decide if it's a legitimate bug
Hi Andy -
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why should I release my software on CPAN if part of the price of entry is
being spammed and told what I should be doing?
Although the remark about CPAN authors' jobs was worded less than
optimally, part of the
On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Andrew Moore wrote:
Do these two things help make the CPAN Testers stuff more useful or at
least less annoying for you?
The only thing that will make CPAN Testers less annoying at this point
is if I am ASKED WHAT I WANT, instead of being told Here's what we're
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing that will make CPAN Testers less annoying at this point is if
I am ASKED WHAT I WANT, instead of being told Here's what we're doing and
dammit, you should like it!
Andy,
What do you want?
More precisely,
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing that will make CPAN Testers less annoying at this point is if
I am ASKED WHAT I WANT, instead of being told Here's what we're doing and
dammit, you should like it!
You're right, Andy. I was being sort of vague
Citeren Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
It's not an entitlement, it's a shared goal of making Perl better. If a
maintainer is going to ignore test reports, perhaps its time to add a
co-maintainer.
Yes, something that indicates the age
On Thursday 04 September 2008 10:50:37 David Cantrell wrote:
Maybe I should start being equally loud and obnoxious about obviously
stupid and broken things like the existence of UNIVERSAL-isa. It might
give you some appreciation for how you're coming across here.
UNIVERSAL::isa and
# from David Golden
# on Thursday 04 September 2008 11:30:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fail to understand the mechanism by which CPAN Testers has
seemingly removed the ability of testers to report bugs to the
correct places. For example,
I think it's
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:50:37PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 10:09:20AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
I fail to understand ...
that much is obvious
[etc]
My apologies chromatic, I shouldn't have lost my temper and said that.
--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers
Hi all,
I just realized that my meta.yml extractor was counting each dist once
for every module in the dist (just going through 02packages.details.txt
line by line = duh!)
Has anyone seen Randy Sims? His site had something like this at one
point, but thepierianspring.org = ENOIP!
So, my
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:21:23PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Andrew Moore wrote:
Do these two things help make the CPAN Testers stuff more useful or at
least less annoying for you?
The only thing that will make CPAN Testers less annoying at this point
is if I am
At
http://thenceforward.net/parrot/coverage/configure-build/coverage.html I
have for over a year displayed the results of coverage analysis on
Parrot's configuration and build tools.
I have come to realize that while these reports are very useful for me
as the maintainer of the Perl 5 aspect
On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:27 PM, David Golden wrote:
I'm not being snide. I've heard what you don't want. I hope that you
see that there is interest in making things better.
In no particular order:
I want nothing in my inbox that I have not explicitly requested.
I want to choose how I get
28 matches
Mail list logo
