Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread Andy Lester
On May 23, 2006, at 9:24 PM, James E Keenan wrote: I've mostly ignored CPANTS, in large part because I refuse to include t/pod.t and t/pod_coverage.t in my distributions because they don't pick up the format in which some of my best documentation is written. And refusing to include those

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread James E Keenan
David Golden wrote: How does "is_prereq" improve quality? I've mostly ignored CPANTS, in large part because I refuse to include t/pod.t and t/pod_coverage.t in my distributions because they don't pick up the format in which some of my best documentation is written. And refusing to inc

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread Thomas Klausner
Hi! I missed most of this discussion due to work and a very important shopping trip to IKEA (well, maybe not that important, but I'll let you argue this out with my girlfriend...) I'm also a bit exhausted now, so here are just some semi-random comments on this thread: - I think the biggest probl

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread chromatic
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 07:35, Chris Dolan wrote: > is_prereq is usually a proxy metric for software maturity: if someone   > thinks your module is good enough that he would rather depend on it   > than reinvent it, then it's probably a better-than-average module on   > CPAN. Contra: File::Find.

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 5/23/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How does "is_prereq" improve quality? Can we avoid getting side-tracked by individual indicators? Move it to another thread, please.

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread Michael G Schwern
On 5/23/06, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How do you get authors to actually look at the CPANTS information > and > make corrections? Well, we like competition. Make it a game! > > So it was you -- or somebody impersonating you on this list -- who > managed to persuade me that a

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread Chris Dolan
On May 23, 2006, at 10:34 AM, David Golden wrote: Chris Dolan wrote: ... just checking for the presence of a t/pod_coverage.t file (which is a weak proxy for POD quality, but dramatically easier to measure). It doesn't check for the existence of a t/pod_coverage.t file. It checks that a

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread Chris Dolan
On May 23, 2006, at 10:15 AM, H.Merijn Brand wrote: is_prereq is usually a vote of confidence, I respectfully disagree completely. It's been more than once that I did *not* install a module because it required a module that I did not trust, either because of (the programming style of) the au

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread David Golden
Chris Dolan wrote: is_prereq is usually a proxy metric for software maturity: if someone thinks your module is good enough that he would rather depend on it than reinvent it, then it's probably a better-than-average module on CPAN. is_prereq is usually a vote of confidence, so it is likely a g

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread H.Merijn Brand
On Tue, 23 May 2006 09:35:27 -0500, Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On May 23, 2006, at 8:39 AM, David Golden wrote: > > > How does "is_prereq" improve quality? > > > > Or, put differently, how does measuring something that an author > > can't control create an incentive to improve? >

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread Chris Dolan
On May 23, 2006, at 8:39 AM, David Golden wrote: How does "is_prereq" improve quality? Or, put differently, how does measuring something that an author can't control create an incentive to improve? is_prereq is usually a proxy metric for software maturity: if someone thinks your module is

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread David Golden
Andy Lester wrote: How do you get authors to actually look at the CPANTS information and make corrections? Well, we like competition. Make it a game! So it was you -- or somebody impersonating you on this list -- who managed to persuade me that actually Cpants being a game was a good thing

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread Andy Lester
How do you get authors to actually look at the CPANTS information and make corrections? Well, we like competition. Make it a game! So it was you -- or somebody impersonating you on this list -- who managed to persuade me that actually Cpants being a game was a good thing! The key is tha

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread Smylers
Michael G Schwern writes: > There's a problem. CPANTS is not a game. If you make it a game, the > system does not work. Hi there. I made a similarish point on this list about a year ago, to which you replied: http://groups.google.co.uk/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your reply included: Finally, the

Re: CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread Yuval Kogman
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:18:48 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > I haven't looked at what's going on in CPANTS for a while but Andy's post > made me have a look and oh dear. There's a problem. CPANTS is not a game. > If you make it a game, the system does not work. Likewise it should not test

CPANTS is not a game.

2006-05-23 Thread Michael G Schwern
I haven't looked at what's going on in CPANTS for a while but Andy's post made me have a look and oh dear. There's a problem. CPANTS is not a game. If you make it a game, the system does not work. Let's review. CPANTS is not a measure of module quality since module quality is not well defined