On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, imacat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 2. Sorry I posted your mail on the list. I do not see any reason why
> this mail is off-list.
Your first reply was directly to me, and not to the list (so the list
is probably missing some context here), which is why i continued it
off-list, assuming it was intentional.
> The safer way is to stop the CPAN testers system.
Can you qualify that? Isn't the CPAN testers system the whole reason
we're here (this list, the cpantesters site, test reports, etc)??
> The already-installed system may not meet the new requirement upon new
> releases.
But that's fine .. and David Golden made a good point that this
"could be useful to check things before upgrading."
> The even-safer way is not to release anything. No software, no bugs,
> problems.
ummm .. and no fun, and 0 chance of doing anything good. Isn't
writing/releasing the whole point in any of us being programmers??
Yes, of course there's risk in any change/release, but the goal is
that the benefits outweigh the risks.
That aside, i'm not sure what "not to release anything" is in
reference to here ...
> What is the right way? The right way is to solve the problem, not
> to close your eyes to the problems.
I'm not sure i follow what "problem" is referring to in this context?
> I do not see your point. Is this because my English is too poor?
English looks just fine to me (based on this and a couple previous
posts on this list); but i'm a lowly monolingual and far from fluent
in a 2nd language, so definitely not going to pass judgement.
BUT, clearly we're on different wavelengths ... let's start back at
the beginning:
Proposition:
+ Provide an easy way to execute CPAN::Reporter::Smoker, limited
just to distributions that have any version installed on the system
(instead of all of CPAN).
Pros:
+ Smoke testing benefits, in terms of generating reports (albeit
not for all of CPAN).
+ Tests are submitted from actual use systems, as opposed to just
an isolated builddir & LIB path.
+ In theory is safer than full smoke, since only testing "trusted"
distros (and their deps) -- the user trusted the distro enough to
install it in the first place.
+ Potential use is to check things out before upgrading.
+ doesn't require (making the trust assumptions) a
dedicated/isolated environment
Cons:
+ In theory, still same potential risk as full smoke run
+ The "trusted" distros are based on a chain of assumptions.
And then we can tackle each line item individually where we disagree.
> I do not see this also. If you remove all the reports from testers
> that are not really installing the module, the CPAN testers report
> database will be less than 1% left.
I in no way was suggesting that ... just the opposite, i think this
could be helpful to _increase_ the test count. e.g. i wouldn't have
submitted a bunch of reports from my windows boxes w/o something like
this.
--david
