FYI
----- Forwarded message from David Golden <xda...@gmail.com> -----
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:52:57 -0400
From: David Golden <xda...@gmail.com>
To: Nigel Horne <n...@bandsman.co.uk>
Cc: CPAN Testers Discuss <cpan-testers-disc...@perl.org>
Subject: Re: CPAN::Reporter: test results were not valid, Prerequisite
version too *high*
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Nigel Horne <n...@bandsman.co.uk> wrote:
> ! DBD::Pg 2.6 2.17.1
Let's review version number math:
2.6 = 2.600000
2.17.1 = 2.017001
2.600000 > 2.017001
I can't help it if module authors do stupid things with their version numbers.
C.f. http://www.dagolden.com/index.php/369/version-numbers-should-be-boring/
-- David
----- End forwarded message -----
----- Forwarded message from David Golden <xda...@gmail.com> -----
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:34:35 -0400
From: David Golden <xda...@gmail.com>
To: Nigel Horne <n...@bandsman.co.uk>
Cc: CPAN Testers Discuss <cpan-testers-disc...@perl.org>
Subject: Re: CPAN::Reporter: test results were not valid, Prerequisite
version too *high*
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Nigel Horne <n...@bandsman.co.uk> wrote:
>> I can't help it if module authors do stupid things with their version
>> numbers.
>
> That doesn't address the issue that I raised of informing developers that
> they've made a mistake.
Historically, authors have complained about getting FAIL reports when
prerequisites are not met so we have erred on the side of not sending
FAIL reports in such a case.
We *do* send PASS reports even if prerequisites aren't satisfied.
I don't know of a general way to determine if authors mis-specified
their prerequisites without an easy back-pan index to see if the
version they specified ever existed and that would still presume an
internet connection.
In any case, that kind of prerequisite analysis is (mostly) static and
I think it's better for CPANTS or some other static analysis tool
instead of CPAN Testers.
David
----- End forwarded message -----
