On Thursday 04 September 2008 15:21:19 David Cantrell wrote:
What I'm not willing to do, however, is to manually check every report
and ensure perfection that way. Why? Because it takes too long, and I
have a job and a life. And anyway, I'd still make mistakes - and even if
I don't make
* Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-05 06:45]:
I want nothing in my inbox that I have not explicitly
requested.
I want to choose how I get reports, if at all, and at what
frequency.
I want aggregation of reports, so that when I send out a module
with a missing dependency in the
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want nothing in my inbox that I have not explicitly requested.
I want to choose how I get reports, if at all, and at what frequency.
I'm going to take the first steps towards this over the weekend by
deprecating author
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 09:50:01AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
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
Just a big long list of AUTHOR/dist-1.23.tar.gz lines would be
sufficient.
Thanks. Does this work?
http://scratchcomputing.com/tmp/generated_by.module-build.txt
Perfect.
Perhaps 2286 is still a lot. A one-liner tells me there are 474
authors. I wonder if starting with one dist from
* Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-04 17:45]:
Who's to say what my job as an author is?
No one, but at the same time, you as an author of libre software
have no moral right to dictate what your users want from your
code, and if your job according to your understanding does not
extend to
* chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-04 23:15]:
UNIVERSAL::isa and UNIVERSAL::can are examples of applying the
design principle of Report Bugs Where They Are, Not Where They
Appear.
How do you propose doing that in the general case? I am certainly
interested in what technology you have
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just in the last couple of days, David Golden reported making at
least two (did I count correctly?) substantial changes to how
CPAN::Reporter grades tests, in order to prevent particular
classes of bogus FAILs. Isn't
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED], David
Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want nothing in my inbox that I have not explicitly requested.
I want to choose how I get reports, if at all, and at what frequency.
I'm going to
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:19:26PM -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
I recognize that CPAN is a volunteer effort, but it does seem to me there
is a implicit responsibility on the part of the author to maintain the
module going forward, or to pass the baton to someone else. Call it a Best
Is
On Sep 4, 2008, at 21:42, Andy Lester wrote:
I want nothing in my inbox that I have not explicitly requested.
Yes, for email reports, it'd be nice to subscribe to a list of your
own reports -- and to be able to request which reports you want (fail
only, non-pass, all, etc.).
I want to
On Sep 4, 2008, at 01:19, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
But with the per-tester direct mail, the recipient is powerless to
stop
it, and feeling powerless tends to make people angry.
This, to me, demonstrates better than most points how CPAN Testers is
being crushed by its own success. A few years
On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:09, chromatic wrote:
My job is editor, not programmer. Also novelist -- but again, not
programmer.
Certainly not CPAN programmer.
What's your novel? Can I read it?
Paying attention is not my job. Releasing software I've written
under a free
and open license does
On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:50, David Cantrell wrote:
Change the record, please. This one's getting boring.
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
On Sep 4, 2008, at 13:32, chromatic wrote:
... but my concern is that no matter how well I document the idea
that if
T::MO and T::MO::E appear not to work correctly and that there may be
method-as-function bugs causing the problem, I'll again get a flurry
of bug
reports that I'll have to
On Sep 4, 2008, at 15:21, David Cantrell wrote:
What I'm not willing to do, however, is to manually check every report
and ensure perfection that way. Why? Because it takes too long,
and I
have a job and a life.
How about checking a random sample of them, just as a sanity check for
On Sep 4, 2008, at 11:53, Andy Lester wrote:
Maybe what's so frustrating to me, and perhaps to chromatic, and
whoever else ignores CPAN Testers but doesn't discuss it, is that
we're being fed things that we should be thankful for and goddammit
why aren't we appreciative??!?
Here are the
I'd hate to lose those in my email because other people don't want to
filter their mail.
I'd hate to get spammed because other people don't want to sign up to
receive them.
xoa
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com = AIM:petdance
Here are test reports reporting on failures for these things that
we care about you caring about.
Again, this is CPANTS, not CPAN Testers.
Getting failure reports for a module not running on Perl 5.005 is a test
about something I don't care about. I don't give Shit One if my code
runs on
On Sep 5, 2008, at 09:10, Andy Lester wrote:
I'd hate to lose those in my email because other people don't want to
filter their mail.
I'd hate to get spammed because other people don't want to sign up to
receive them.
I think that adding changing things so that authors opt-in to getting
On Sep 5, 2008, at 09:13, Andy Lester wrote:
Here are test reports reporting on failures for these things that
we care about you caring about.
Again, this is CPANTS, not CPAN Testers.
Getting failure reports for a module not running on Perl 5.005 is a
test
about something I don't care
Well, yeah, I have too. And sometimes I make a tweak to get things
working on 5.005, and other times I tell my users that it runs 5.006
or later by saying so in Build.PL. Seems reasonable to me to specify
such dependencies.
Seems reasonable to me is EXACTLY my frustration. That is YOUR
On Sep 5, 2008, at 09:34, Andy Lester wrote:
Well, yeah, I have too. And sometimes I make a tweak to get things
working on 5.005, and other times I tell my users that it runs 5.006
or later by saying so in Build.PL. Seems reasonable to me to specify
such dependencies.
Seems reasonable to me
* Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-05 18:15]:
Here are test reports reporting on failures for these
things that we care about you caring about.
Again, this is CPANTS, not CPAN Testers.
Getting failure reports for a module not running on Perl 5.005
is a test about something I
On Friday 05 September 2008 08:48:36 David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:09, chromatic wrote:
Well, you can ignore the FAILs. Or you can evaluate each one to
determine if you could change something your code to make it easier
for your users. No one compels you to do anything.
On Friday 05 September 2008 06:07:53 Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-04 23:15]:
UNIVERSAL::isa and UNIVERSAL::can are examples of applying the
design principle of Report Bugs Where They Are, Not Where They
Appear.
How do you propose doing that in the
On Friday 05 September 2008 10:31:29 Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
I would be interested to know that you don’t care about supporting
my configuration, but as you don’t even care enough to declare
your non-support explicitly, I have to find out otherwise.
I don't like the check
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andy Lester
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd hate to lose those in my email because other people don't want to
filter their mail.
I'd hate to get spammed because other people don't want to sign up to
receive them.
You keep saying spam, but that's not the right
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nicholas Clark
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:19:26PM -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
I recognize that CPAN is a volunteer effort, but it does seem to me there
is a implicit responsibility on the part of the author to maintain the
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:36 PM, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just in the last couple of days, David Golden reported making at
least two (did I count correctly?) substantial changes to how
CPAN::Reporter grades tests, in order to prevent particular
classes of bogus FAILs. Isn't that a
On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:46 PM, brian d foy wrote:
You keep saying spam, but that's not the right term. You're being an
ass characterizing it like that.
I knew before even opening this mail that it would contain a personal
attack.
Why is it necessary to insult people who have different
On Sep 5, 2008, at 10:32, chromatic wrote:
You're right, there's no compel. If reports don't come by email
to people
who haven't asked for them, then they'll only get reported via an
RSS feed I
can choose to read or not, and on the search.cpan.org pages of my
distributions, which I don't
On Sep 5, 2008, at 10:46, chromatic wrote:
I don't like the check testers/grumble/upload new distribution with no
functional changes just niggly little packaging bits you hope will
opt out of
testers tests you don't care about/sleep/repeat cycle. It's a slow,
clunky
black box game where
On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:24 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
Punishing? Punishing would be removing a module from CPAN. Getting
fail report emails is annoying and should be changed to be opt-in.
Would that solve your problem?
One person's annoying is another person's punishment.
The key here is
On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:24 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
Getting fail report emails is annoying and should be changed to be
opt-in. Would that solve your problem?
Oh, and yes. Once we stop spamming people, CPAN Testers then becomes
the Consumer Reports model, not the police model.
xoa
--
On Sep 5, 2008, at 10:57, chromatic wrote:
Full credit (and many thanks) to David Golden and others who are
moving away
from this model, but if I'm an ass for saying You know, that has a
lot in
common with spam and CPAN-related services with good intentions
should
carefully consider the
On Sep 5, 2008, at 11:28, Andy Lester wrote:
Getting fail report emails is annoying and should be changed to be
opt-in. Would that solve your problem?
Oh, and yes. Once we stop spamming people, CPAN Testers then
becomes the Consumer Reports model, not the police model.
Thank you. I
On Friday 05 September 2008 11:23:07 David E. Wheeler wrote:
And if you have to opt-in, I imagine that would solve the biggest
complaint, yes? It's the unsolicited email reports that are annoying,
right?
They are annoying, but I'm not sure it's my biggest complaint. There's also
the
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM, David E. Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 5, 2008, at 09:10, Andy Lester wrote:
I'd hate to lose those in my email because other people don't want to
filter their mail.
I'd hate to get spammed because other people don't want to sign up to
receive
On Sep 5, 2008, at 1:36 PM, David Golden wrote:
I will be changing Test::Reporter to stop all author CC'ing which will
take effect when/if we convince existing testers to upgrade.
Thank you, sir.
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com = AIM:petdance
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Eirik Berg Hanssen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You keep saying spam, but that's not the right term. You're being an
ass characterizing it like that.
Yeah, it's not the right term. While it meets the other criteria to
qualify as spam by the classical definition,
# from Andy Lester
# on Friday 05 September 2008 09:34:
Well, yeah, I have too. And sometimes I make a tweak to get things
working on 5.005, and other times I tell my users that it runs 5.006
or later by saying so in Build.PL. Seems reasonable to me to
specify such dependencies.
Seems
For anyone still following the other threads, I plan to make changes
to Test::Reporter that will stop authors from being copied on reports.
These changes will likely happen on Sunday and then I will be
encouraging CPAN Testers to upgrade.
As testers upgrade, the immediate effect is that authors
On Friday 05 September 2008 12:08:10 David Golden wrote:
There is sufficient outrage now over email volumes that waiting for
the preference system seems pointless and hopefully, in exchange for
quick action now, those that are most annoyed will be willing to be
patient during the transition
* chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-05 19:50]:
If I could see somehow that my distribution implicitly runs on
Perl 5.001 (or explicitly runs only on 5.11.0), or that it has
no Makefile.PL or Build.PL, or any of the other dozens of
packaging quirks that can cause problems, I could fix them
On Sep 5, 2008, at 12:08, David Golden wrote:
There is sufficient outrage now over email volumes that waiting for
the preference system seems pointless and hopefully, in exchange for
quick action now, those that are most annoyed will be willing to be
patient during the transition from opt-out
# from Aristotle Pagaltzis
# on Friday 05 September 2008 06:07:
UNIVERSAL::isa and UNIVERSAL::can are examples of applying the
design principle of Report Bugs Where They Are, Not Where They
Appear.
How do you propose doing that in the general case? I am certainly
interested in what technology
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, whether a 2.0 design consideration or whatever, please help me get
the things I don't have to remember out of my brain and into the
computer. And maybe I'll even be able to help keep other authors from
scratching their
# from David Cantrell
# on Friday 05 September 2008 05:56:
Perhaps 2286 is still a lot. A one-liner tells me there are 474
authors. I wonder if starting with one dist from each author would
be a useful sampling, since often the weird stuff happens when an
author found a way to do some
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], chromatic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I could see somehow that my distribution implicitly runs on
Perl 5.001 (or explicitly runs only on 5.11.0), or that it has no Makefile.PL
or Build.PL, or any of the other dozens of packaging quirks that can cause
problems,
# from Andy Lester on Friday 05 September 2008 17:12:
On Sep 5, 2008, at 7:07 PM, brian d foy wrote:
CPAN Testers is what happens in a world of open source. Anyone gets
to look at and comment on your code, whether you agree with them or
not, and they don't need anyone's permission.
That's a
On Friday 05 September 2008 16:52:05 brian d foy wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], chromatic
If I could see somehow that my distribution implicitly runs on
Perl 5.001 (or explicitly runs only on 5.11.0), or that it has no
Makefile.PL or Build.PL, or any of the other dozens of packaging
On Sep 5, 2008, at 8:15 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
You know, a hello that doesn't start with FAIL!
Yes, beautiful. We need to remember that not everyone is a grizzled
veteran.
--
Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com = AIM:petdance
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 6:17 PM, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 05 September 2008 16:52:05 brian d foy wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], chromatic
If I could see somehow that my distribution implicitly runs on
Perl 5.001 (or explicitly runs only on 5.11.0), or that it has
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi. This mail is from the cpantesters. We are a group of helpful
volunteers who automatically download and test modules from the CPAN.
You are receiving this mail because we've just tested your first ever
CPAN
On Sep 5, 2008, at 10:19 PM, David Golden wrote:
You know, a hello that doesn't start with FAIL!
Unless the result is 11 FAILs. ;-)
An author welcome with resources is probably best handled by PAUSE,
not CPAN Testers.
Why not? A one-time Hi, we're watching your code, and if you'd like
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-05 21:10]:
* After a period of time to allow people to opt-in, the default
policy for authors without a stated preference will be
changed to no mail.
From that point on, CPAN Testers will be a purely opt-in
service. Hopefully, the design of
# from David Golden
# on Friday 05 September 2008 20:19:
You know, a hello that doesn't start with FAIL!
Unless the result is 11 FAILs. ;-)
Still. The subject line says Welcome, not FAIL.
An author welcome with resources is probably best handled by PAUSE,
not CPAN Testers.
Until PAUSE
58 matches
Mail list logo
