On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Again, see above. These points codify existing community standards. The > reason this is not much of a problem now in 2008 is probably because these > standards have become so ingrained, both in terms of spreading the word, and > in terms of making sure everyone is using standard tools that do the right > thing (using EUMM, MI, or MB instead of hand-rolled Makefiles, for example). > > For the few cases where this isn't the case, having this codified may > provide some useful feedback for module authors or potential end users.
Yes... I can see this. [...] >> uses it? Some of my modules are very useful for end-users' code, not >> so much for module developers' code. So I get dinged for this? > > I think you're misinterpreting the meaning of the scores. You're not > "getting dinged". You _are_ rewarded if your code is considered good enough > to be required by something else. In other words, the point is a reward, but > the lack of a point is not a punishment. It is when modules and authors are ranked by this score. That fosters the perception that these are meaningful metrics and that a high "purity" score is desirable. -- Eric
