CPANdeps (http://deps.cpantesters.org) has been providing useful information on water quality. It might be enough to make a better or opinionated presentation of it for the upriver authors. IMHO META files and min version specification depends more on when a distribution is released and don't well fit for water quality metrics.
2015-12-23 9:16 GMT+09:00 David Golden <x...@xdg.me>: > I thought the "min perl version" is a tough metric without considering what > version of Perl it will actually run on. I would refine that metric to > "declared min perl version >= actual perl version required". Figuring out > the latter could perhaps be done via CPAN Testers -- if all of 5.6 fails, > then we know it's 5.8 or better. But if there is at least one 5.6 pass, > then it works on 5.6. And if it works on 5.6, I think omission of a > minimum perl version is no big deal. This is something I've been wishing to add to Kwalitee but haven't because of a performance issue of min version detectors. > > I don't want to see go down the Kwalitee route where people put a minimum > perl version of "5" or something just to get a better water quality score. > > Generally, I think some subset of the core Kwalitee metrics and some > adaptation of your adoption criteria (e.g. time since any release by author) > would be a place to look for "water quality" metrics. I do think you need > to find a way to distinguish what water quality is trying to measure > distinct from Kwalitee. +1 Kenichi > > David > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Neil Bowers <neil.bow...@cogendo.com> > wrote: >> >> At the London Perl Workshop I gave a talk on the CPAN River, and how >> development and release practices should mature as a dist moves up river. >> This was prompted by the discussions we had at Berlin earlier this year. >> >> Writing the talk prompted a bunch of ideas, one of which is having a >> “water quality” metric, which gives some indication of whether a dist is a >> good one to rely on (needs a better name). I’ve come up with a first >> definition, and calculated the metric for the different stages of the river: >> >> http://neilb.org/2015/12/22/cpan-river-water-quality.html >> >> >> Any thoughts on what factors should be included in such a metric? I think >> it should really include factors that it would be hard for anyone to argue >> with. Currently the individual factors are: >> >> Not having too many CPAN Testers fails >> Having a META.json or META.yml file >> Specifying the min perl version required for the dist >> >> >> Cheers, >> Neil >> >> At some point I’ll share the slides from my talk, but slideshare doesn’t >> handle keynote presentations, and the exported powerpoint from keynote is >> broken (neither powerpoint nor slideshare can handle it!) >> > > > > -- > David Golden <x...@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC/Github: @xdg
