Michael G Schwern wrote: > [1] It can be argued that bleadperl testers should probably not email authors
I'd argue that they should, as problems found testing against bleadperl seem to end up being problems in the next stable release. Personally I'd prefer to at least have the opportunity to fix my modules before ordinary users (who never touch a dev perl) will ever see the problem. Additionally, results sent to the cpan-testers list are largely un-monitored AFAIK - it's really just a convenient way of feeding nntp and the various webby tools. If by testing a module we find an honest-to-goodness bug in bleadperl, it's far more likely to get noticed and reported to p5p if the *module* author is notified cos he's the one who is most likely to be paying attention. And no, p5p definitely shouldn't be fed cpan-testers failure reports from dev perls directly! Even ignoring the load on the perl.org mail server, I can bet you that most people would just procmail them to /dev/null because most are irrelevant to p5p - they're the same bugs in modules that are also caught on stable perls. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist comparative and superlative explained: <Huhn> worse, worser, worsest, worsted, wasted
