Hi, I'll answer Eric, Barbie and Aristotle in the same mail to ekkp the mail tide low (which seems impossible lately)
> >Why not let authors decide which modules they want to get smoked? > > Because they might decide 'none'? This might eliminate information that > is useful to the users. right, I meant let them decide what smoke results they want to get not if they get smoked or not. This would also answer Aristotle categorically opposition. We simply agree but I put it in a wrong way. > >Why not let authors decide which platform they want their modules > > smoked on? > > My 30+ modules will quickly cause me to very personally dislike that > arrangement, even with my automatic uploader. Are you going to > repackage all of your dists to set the smoker preferences? I cannot > imagine any scheme of setting preferences in META.yml working out very > well. I'm tired of seing reports for failure on windows when the module is not a windows module at all. Wether it's difficult to imagine the scheme or not does not change the fact that it is needed. > >If you still opt for the centralized control, will it be possible to > > install a private smoke environment and a private centralized > > control? > > That sounds like a mirror, but I guess you might find some way to > overlay something on your mirror (I'm not sure what your concern is > though or why your smokes would need to be private unless you are > smoking in-house code alongside the CPAN -- that would be a cool > overlay setup.) If Perl is to be enterprise worthy someday, it has to allow companies to smoke their own modules using the same mechanism as standard perl modules but beind a privacy curtain. My belief is that the whole toolchain shouls be installable in a private setup. PAUSE, CPAN, searc.cpan, smoking, RT, .... This would allow enhencements done by companies to find their way upwards to the OSS world (a best case scenario) Cheers, Nadim.
