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
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
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
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
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
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?
is_prereq is
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
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
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
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 actually
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
