On Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:01:44 David Golden wrote:
> > You encourage what you measure,
>
> In theory, yes. In practice, that hasn't been the experience to date.
> Testers over 70K:
>
> 1 587018 Chris Williams (BINGOS)
> 2 318527 Andreas J. König (ANDK)
> 3 188392 David Golden (DAGOLDEN)
> 4 151457 David Cantrell (DCANTRELL)
> 5 148505 Slaven Rezić (SREZIC)
> 6 73425 Jost Krieger (JOST)
> 7 73104 Yi Ma Mao (IMACAT)
> Do you think this group couldn't game the stats if all they wanted was
> a high score? Being snide about peoples volunteer efforts isn't
> particularly constructive.
Someone in that top seven has sent plenty of useless reports. ("Hi, I'm from
CPAN Testers! I have my client configured not to install required
dependencies! Your distribution doesn't work! Hope that helps!")
> If you think that people should be rewarded (acknowledged?) for
> "useful" reports, start defining "useful" and the heuristics you'd use
> to identify them.
* Does the report identify an actual failure for the common use case of CPAN
installation or does it identify a failure in configuring the CPAN Testers
client?
* Does the report identify a known failure already reported elsewhere with the
same characteristics?
* Does the report identify a success on a previously unknown
platform/configuration combination?
* Does the platform combination include a supported version of Perl?
My criteria for usefulness suggest answers of "Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes." I
realize that the third question is more difficult to answer in the presence
of XS components, but most of the distributions on the CPAN are pure Perl.
-- c
