On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 16:12 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
On 4/27/07, Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My opinion is that we ought to not mandate the use of Pod coverage
tests, simply because for our purposes it doesn't really matter what
their result is. If they're present, we should
RC == Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RC You don't want to know about the bugs and deficits your packages
RC suffer from?
Well, to play devil's advocate, if we're to consider lack of
documentation coverage a bug and block inclusion of packages due to
those bugs, then we shouldn't even
On 4/27/07, Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My opinion is that we ought to not mandate the use of Pod coverage
tests, simply because for our purposes it doesn't really matter what
their result is. If they're present, we should conditionalize the
tests (e.g. %_with_pod_tests magic or some
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 16:12 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
On 4/27/07, Chris Weyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My opinion is that we ought to not mandate the use of Pod coverage
tests, simply because for our purposes it doesn't really matter what
their result is. If they're present, we should
-- even to the point of requiring other modules be
packaged to enable these tests. Test as much as possible.
Test::Pod::Coverage tests don't actually test the functionality of the
module. Further, they can't tell you if that documentation is any
good, or even plain wrong. We also have
