On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Linda A. Walsh <l...@tlinx.org> wrote:
> > Moving this question to module-authors as per David G.'s feedback. > > I was looking for available mail-filtering, aka Milter, mods, and > came across Mail-Milter. > > I noticed it has 1 review rating it a single *. and it wanted to > know if the review was helpful -- and it wasn't -- > as it doesn't say *what* version the review was about. > > The reviews seem to be generally "worthless", if they don't > tell me which version is being reviewed. A comment about a module > from V0.0.1 isn't very useful for a module at version 2.3.7 (as a > randomly chosen example). > > This brings up a few requests/ideas for improvement: > > 1) Could the version number a review refers to be included? > > For comments already posted, either, mark them as too old to > to have included the reviewed version, OR, *IF* the date > of the review is known (it probably should be included in the > review anyway), then match it to the highest version before > the review was added. > > 2) There should be a way of "closing out" reviews that would have > really been better placed as bugs or RFE's, that have been addressed > (i.e. bug-fixed, or feature-added, etc...). > > As it stands now, reviews don't say anything about current versions > and for "bug-fix" reviews, there's no way to indicate the bug was > fixed and the review doesn't apply to a more current version. There > is also no way to respond to a review to mention that anything has changed > or been fixed. Any response ends up as another, _unconnected_ comment -- > not very useful. > > Thoughts? Ideas/feedback? > Thanks... > > > > (Resending as it didn't go to the list) These issues are mostly regarding the cpanratings site itself, which is not part of search.cpan.org. You can find its issue tracker here: https://github.com/perlorg/perlweb/issues And you might also find this discussion interesting, regarding similar links from metacpan.org: https://github.com/metacpan/metacpan-web/ issues/1653
