I'm mostly surprised at the way-upriver distributions that lack it. I wonder how many of those are dual-life that don't ship with the kind of tooling that "CPAN best practice" use.
David On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Kenichi Ishigaki <kishig...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-12-25 3:00 GMT+09:00 Karen Etheridge <p...@froods.org>: > >> 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. > > I agree with this, and if the water quality metrics should be complete > and everything should be mentioned, the metric must be included > without doubt. However, I'm less sure if it makes sense to stress it > as a new, small number of water quality metrics just because only > about 3 percent of distributions shipped in 2015 didn't have META.yml > already and the percentage of failing distributions is getting smaller > year by year, so there might be little room to improve for most of the > active authors. Of course, It would help older, possibly abondoned > distributions, but that's a different story. > > > > > > > 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 > >> > > > -- David Golden <x...@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC/Github: @xdg
