On Wednesday 03 September 2008 00.16.48 Andrew Moore wrote: > If the smoke testers and CPAN::Reporter and the like didn't send the > reports directly to module authors, but instead they went through > something that processed them centrally, then there could be some more > control placed on the mails that go to the authors, so the first part > of the plan that I'm envisioning is to default those tools to not > sending mails directly to module authors (or not allow it at all). > Then, then reports only go to the cpan-testers list.
This will vary from author to author. I'm quite happy of getting failure reports by mail and I don't want to bother getting to a centralized location or having a rss feed. Centralized always sound to be like single point of failure. > * If particular authors have opted out entirely, then of course they > could get no reports. > * One complaint about the CPAN Testers reports is that they sometimes > report failures for old versions of perl for which the module was > never designed to use. > (<http://markmail.org/message/47twvn4uvmfkhy2p>) I understand that > module authors can specify the minimum working version in their > modules, and that is arguably better than leaving it open to chance. > If there has never been a passing report on any perl older than X, > then don't send any more reports for older versions of perl. They got > the original report about 5.6.1, they don't need one about 5.6.0. > * If a module never has worked on some particular OS (even though the > author has not specifically prohibited it), then don't send another > failure for that OS. They have gotten that one, that's enough. > * If a particular version of the module has never passed at all, don't > send more than one report, even if it's a failure for a new OS or a > new platform. They may don't want to know more than once that their > new version had a fatal error that makes it fail for everyone. > * Perhaps I really like a particular author or module. I could > subscribe to failure reports for that one even though I'm not an > author at all. All this sounds like fields that should be set in the META.yml. This gives complete control to the authors which is the right place I believe. As for getting error reports for other authors modules, That's already available, centralized. I don't mind people getting what they want as long as I get what I want ;) Cheers, Nadim.
