On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 21:00 +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:40:45AM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
> > We should be very wary of stipulating HOW authors have to achieve their > > quality. Saying you can only check your POD in one specific way goes to > > far IMO. > > That's a good point. > > OTOH, I know of several people who added Pod::Coverage to their test suites > (and hopefully found some undocumented methods...) because of this metric. > Thus one goal (raising the overall quality (!) of CPAN) is reached. Adding a kwalitee check for a test that runs Devel::Cover by default might on the surface appear to meet this goal, but I hope people recognize it as a bad idea. Why, then, is suggesting that people ship tests for POD errors and coverage a good idea? -- c
