> I think “has a META.yml or META.json” is worth keeping in I'm surprised this one is being discussed at all. IMO, not having a META file should disqualify the distribution from being considered at all. At Berlin last year we talked about making it mandatory, and held off "for now" so the outliers could be fixed. Having META should be non-negotiable for a well-formed CPAN distribution.
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Neil Bowers <neil.bow...@cogendo.com> wrote: > > 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. > > I’m not convinced on min version either, but am leaning towards including > it, if we can come up with a definition that’s practical and useful. > > I think “has a META.yml or META.json” is worth keeping in, as there are a > number of benefits to having one, and I suspect there’s at least some > correlation between dists that don’t have a META file and dists that > haven’t listed all prereqs (eg in the Makefile.PL). > > That said, I’m really just experimenting here, trying to find things that > are useful indicators for whether a dist is good to rely on. > > Neil > >
