On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 06:55:11AM -0400, David Golden wrote:
> >The latter is
> > important as there have been .zip and .tar.gz uploads that match the
> > other 3. However, they are still the same distribution release and
>
> Now I'll be pedantic. They *should* be the same distribution, but
> there is no guarantee that they are.
Good point and agreed, but could be tricky :)
> Here's my summary of the data model:
>
> @path = split qr{/}, $distfile;
> $pause_id = $path[0];
> $archive_file = $path[-1];
>
> Archive files should be able to split into distribution "name",
> "version" and an archive suffix.
Agreed.
> After a chat with rjbs last night, here's my proposal for CT 2.0 for
> the time being. CPAN Testers reports in a metabase should use
> *either* a distfile resource or a distribution resource:
>
> cpan:///distfile/pauseid/distname-version.suffix
> cpan:///dist/distname-version
>
> The latter is what CT 1.0 reports are indexed by. For the time being,
> we should allow those, and sometime in the future we can use a backpan
> index to make a best guess at the corresponding distfile. New CT 2.0
> clients must (in the RFC sense) submit reports for distfiles, not
> dists, so that we have reports associated with the unique resource on
> CPAN.
I'm happy with that.
In the interest of formalising what we report on, we should agree that
nothing without an agreed format will be tested. Current smokers still
occasionally pick up releases that don't match the distfile (e.g.
missing version). Admittedly this shouldn't be a problem as the reports
generated are missing details and wouldn't be accepted by the new system
anyway, but we ought to have some clarification of that, so that in the
future, everyone is aware of the decisions we made, and future
maintainers aren't left wondering why we came to a particular decision
(ref. UNKNOWN grades :))
Cheers,
Barbie.
--
2009 QA Hackathon <http://qa-hackathon.org>
Birmingham Perl Mongers <http://birmingham.pm.org>
Memoirs Of A Roadie <http://barbie.missbarbell.co.uk>
