On 11/4/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd say just check that META.yml conforms to whatever version of the spec it
says it conforms to. If it doesn't have a version, assume 1.0.
I have to second this. There really shouldn't be separate "conforms
to 1.0" and "conforms to 1.
Anyone have any ideas on this blip?
http://handelframework.com/coverage/blib-lib-Handel-Base-pm.html
line #171
Lord knows, it doesn't really matter since that's the only piece left,
but I'm kinda of curious. This is under Devel::Cover 0.59 under 5.8.4,
5.8.6, and 5.8.8
-=Chris
signature.a
On Nov 5, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
While discussing your module name is useful, I don't agree that
having a blessing by a particular fiat is great or important.
Or that finally having it blessed adds kwalitee, unlike adding other
kwalitee metrics.
--
Andy Lester => [EM
Steffen Mueller wrote:
> David Golden schrieb:
>> Maybe it would make sense to get DSLIP added to the META.yml spec
>> instead.
>
> Andy and Schwern made a similar point. I agree with that.
Harvesting ideas from DSLIP, not just plunking it into META.yml. As
implemented its not very useful.
>
Andy Lester wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Steffen Mueller wrote:
>
>> I am not talking about 01...
>>
>> But of course, we can agree to disagree on this even for 03...
>
> Either way, doesn't matter. It's an arbitrary distinction. Also, many
> module authors don't even bother submitt
http://schwern.org/~schwern/src/Test-Simple-0.64_03.tar.gz
or a CPAN near you
This is a release candidate for 0.65. If your module relies on Test::More or
Test::Builder please try it out, I don't want to hear any moaning after the
release.
0.64_03 Sun Nov 5 13:09:55 EST 2006
- Tests wil
David Golden schrieb:
Maybe it would make sense to get DSLIP added to the META.yml spec instead.
Andy and Schwern made a similar point. I agree with that.
Also, I agree that the original idea perhaps wasn't great - except for
the fact that the blessing of the modules list maintainers *is* gre
On Nov 5, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Steffen Mueller wrote:
I am not talking about 01...
But of course, we can agree to disagree on this even for 03...
Either way, doesn't matter. It's an arbitrary distinction. Also,
many module authors don't even bother submitting their modules to the
list.
Steffen Mueller wrote:
> Hi perl-qa,
>
> there's been a lot of discussion about CPANTS metrics in the recent past.
>
> How about a mandatory or optional metric for modules registered with the
> modules list? Why is that a sign of (q|kw)alit(y|ee)? Because it means
> the author has the blessing of
Andy Lester schrieb:
On Nov 5, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Steffen Mueller wrote:
How about a mandatory or optional metric for modules registered with
the modules list? Why is that a sign of (q|kw)alit(y|ee)? Because it
means the author has the blessing of the module list maintainers as
far as the cho
On 11/5/06, Steffen Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about a mandatory or optional metric for modules registered with the
modules list? Why is that a sign of (q|kw)alit(y|ee)? Because it means
the author has the blessing of the module list maintainers as far as the
choice of namespace goes.
On Nov 5, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Steffen Mueller wrote:
How about a mandatory or optional metric for modules registered
with the modules list? Why is that a sign of (q|kw)alit(y|ee)?
Because it means the author has the blessing of the module list
maintainers as far as the choice of namespace g
Hi perl-qa,
there's been a lot of discussion about CPANTS metrics in the recent past.
How about a mandatory or optional metric for modules registered with the
modules list? Why is that a sign of (q|kw)alit(y|ee)? Because it means
the author has the blessing of the module list maintainers as fa
13 matches
Mail list logo
