On 10/26/19 9:49 PM, Doug Bell wrote:
Okay, the general vibe I got from the responses is:
* Report metadata isn't useful enough without the report text
* Data for old distributions matters for the people maintaining systems
that use them
I think the best path forward might be to only do
Okay, the general vibe I got from the responses is:
* Report metadata isn't useful enough without the report text
* Data for old distributions matters for the people maintaining systems that
use them
I think the best path forward might be to only do these things:
1. Archive the full report
tively detrimental
> to the site's stability (as I mentioned above). For that reason, I propose to
> implement the following data retention policies:
>
> 1. Full text reports will be kept a maximum of 5 years
> 2. Report summaries will be kept for all distributions install
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 13:23:45 -0700, Serguei Trouchelle
> said:
>> * Are test summaries useful to you without the full text of the report?
> The grade is useful even without the text. Full text for PASS reports
> is probably not really useful at all.
I would disagree, full text of
Doug,
So, questions for those affected:
* Do you look at text reports older than 5 years? 3 years? 1 year?
For others' modules, no/no/no. For my modules, no/rarely/yes.
* Are test summaries useful to you without the full text of the report?
That's a really tough one. I suppose they're
On 2019-10-17 10:33, Doug Bell wrote:
That said, timely data is more useful than untimely data. Do we need
reports submitted in 2006? Data for modules only available on BackPAN
isn't actionable, so do we need to keep that information?
As long as we have BackPAN, this information is useful,
retention policies:
1. Full text reports will be kept a maximum of 5 years
2. Report summaries will be kept for all distributions installable from CPAN,
or if no longer installable from CPAN, 5 years
* This means that someone will still know if a distribution
passes/fails, but if an author
