On 9 Sep 2005, at 21:55, David Golden wrote:
At least one of the culprits may be Test::Exception, for any
version before 0.20. The problem is that CPANPLUS doesn't
currently play well with Module::Build and doesn't respect the
"build_requires" parameter, but only looks at the "requires"
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 22:28 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> For search results quite the opposite. I'd really like if if the default
> way people got search results back for CPAN modules at least attempted
> to order at some level based on citations. (ie number of pre-requisites)
+1
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 10:37:01PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Or make is_prereq SO easy to game that it's a nonissue? Why should a
> module depended upon by another author be ranked any higher than one
> that isn't.
For CPANTS I see no reason.
For search results quite the opposite. I'd really
At least one of the culprits may be Test::Exception, for any version before
0.20. The problem is that CPANPLUS doesn't currently play well with
Module::Build and doesn't respect the "build_requires" parameter, but only
looks at the "requires" parameter. So you'll get unexpected failures for
t
Hi all,
Guess what the following modules all have in common (aside from the
fact that I wrote them)?
AI::NeuralNet::Simple
AI::Prolog
Games::Maze::FirstPerson
All of them have failed at one time or another because the target
computer didn't have Sub::Uplevel installed. I'm going to have t
--- Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ditch the CPANTs elements that a fail-by-default. By that I mean
> has_test_pod_coverage, is_prereq and possibly also has_test_pod.
The is_prereq is the only one that really annoys me. If folks start
using module-starter, they'll likely pass the pod
Chromatic wrote:
Maybe the problem is that CPANTS as it exists now measures some metrics
better measured on the developer side, not the installer side. It's
handy to run the POD coverage tests as the developer of a module, but
it's not that interesting for the person installing the module to run
"Andy Lester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:07:02AM -0400, Christopher H. Laco
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Why would they stop uploading? How would they, the new uploaders, even
> > know about CPANTS? It's not like uploaded files automat
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Ditch the CPANTs elements that a fail-by-default. By that I mean
has_test_pod_coverage, is_prereq and possibly also has_test_pod.
Or make is_prereq SO easy to game that it's a nonissue? Why should a
module depended upon by another author be ranked any higher than one
that
David Cantrell wrote:
Tels wrote:
If I were to run CPANTS, I would drop that module like a hot potato at
a summer campfire.
Oh, and reduce everyone's K rating involved in the little prank by
one :)
I thought the whole point of CPANTS was to be useful to authors, not
useful to the CPANTS
Tels wrote:
If I were to run CPANTS, I would drop that module like a hot potato at a
summer campfire.
Oh, and reduce everyone's K rating involved in the little prank by one :)
I thought the whole point of CPANTS was to be useful to authors, not
useful to the CPANTS cabal. So if I want to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Friday 09 September 2005 03:08, David Golden wrote:
> It can't be by the same author, though, to count for is_prereq, right?
>
> So someone needs to create a new CPAN ID, and release a module under
> that ID that prereqs all of CPAN. Then we'd all get
12 matches
Mail list logo
