Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Same here. I'd argue that for the detectable "Insufficient > PREREQ_PM" and other common errors, we should still send > FAIL, but with a more helpful message as to how to correct > the problem (like the one I've written for the UNKNOWN report > of modules that did not specify their test suites, as included > after __DATA__).
I second that. Just from my experience: I have no idea how many FAILS I have sent out because of the missing PREREQ_PM problem, but probably more than 50. Maybe even 100. Usually, after I had sent out the FAIL report (close to 100% of the) authors load up a corrected version in a very short time. Fortunately it seems like authors care on FAIL's. I have sent out as well a lot off PASS reports were I still remark some problems I see. Unfortunatly many authors don't care about this reports because they already got the "PASS". While I cannot prove it, I fear a sending out a PASS for modules with missing PREREQ_PM could end up with authors don't care to fix this little trivial problem. Here we CPAN testers have our little chance to do something for KWALITEE. While (I|we) may sound like to strict or even stuborn "high-school teachers", IMHO we should not give up this policy on sending FAIL reports. I am sure it makes a difference. > Anybody interested in drafting a similiar notification letter > to the author of a module that runs into the PREREQ_PM problem? Autrijus, I am still one of this old fashioned hand testers, but if you get such a draft notification, I would love to put it into my ".ex" file. Andreas
