In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Fenwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Does anyone think this is a bad idea? I think it's an exceedingly bad idea. The more things I have to pay attention to in CPANTS, the less likely that I'm going to do anything about it. You might like using it, but I'm not going to need it in almost any of my code, and I would have to ignore this metric. CPANTS gaming made my distributions better, but only because there were a limited number of things I had to fix or change. For a long time, I was the guy on the top of the list. I've been ignoring CPANTS for several months because of the explosion of metrics, although I was convinced last week to look again. If I start ignoring metrics, I'll just start ignoring CPANTS again. > * Is there someplace this should be going besides from CPANTS? > It's definitely a common mistake that module authors can > easily fix. I don't know about common. I don't even think taint checking is common, even if it should be.
