demerphq wrote:
On 03/03/2008, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:57 AM, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO if an NA result comes in without email contact details and without
> an explanation for the NA then the result should not be aggregated
> against the module.
The email contact details are there, just suppressed by the NNTP web
gateway to avoid email harvesting by spambots. If you have a real
NNTP client, you'll see the email. Also, see Google Groups (though
you have to solve a captcha to reveal the email):
http://groups.google.com/group/perl.cpan.testers/browse_thread/thread/f67ccb5a66aed2e/ffa37628e76a42e5?lnk=gst&q=NA+ExtUtils-Install#ffa37628e76a42e5
This information would be useful to display on CpanTesters itself. The
point is I saw NA's that were inexplicable to me, and found no further
useful information.
It would be nice if NA's included the reason for it being an NA, that being
the full Makefile/Build.PL output just like if it failed. I don't see any
harm in that and it would help identify accidental NAs.
Also it would be nice if an NA came with a soothing explanation for the
author. More than one rookie CPAN author has asked me "Oh god, what's this NA
thing mean? How do I get rid of it?!"
While I'm on the subject, a link to an author FAQ about CPAN Testers in the
mail would be handy.
--
52. Not allowed to yell “Take that Cobra” at the rifle range.
-- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army
http://skippyslist.com/list/
