I just wish it would remember my login between browser re-starts. And
what's with the invalid certificate anyways?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:17:40 +1000
> Paul Fenwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Continue to
On Jun 30, 2008, at 8:46 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
All suggestions involving search.cpan.org fall in the category that
nobody can *do* anything about (except asking Graham Barr to do it.)
Right. Which is another reason I've started up rethinking-cpan. I'm
going to be more stuff on that so
# from Paul Fenwick
# on Monday 30 June 2008 17:17:
>Let's pretend you're J. Average Hacker. You've popped over to CPAN...
>http://search.cpan.org/~sartak/Moose-0.51/lib/Moose.pm
Let's pretend you're J. Average Hacker. You've been told that
http://search.cpan.org is "CPAN"...
Game ove
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:17:40 +1000
Paul Fenwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Continue to the Bitcard service to login. It will send you
> back here when you are done registering and logging in."
Oooh, good point, I forgot all about the nasty, ugly, bitcard registering
bit. Put that
* David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-01 00:05]:
> Surely you can at least check that all POD is "well-formed"
> without running any code from the distribution in question?
Not entirely, although in retrospect that doesn’t matter.
The issue is that if you have multi-line strings or heredo
* Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-01 00:15]:
> # from Aristotle Pagaltzis
> # on Monday 30 June 2008 14:42:
>
>> But *even if* the line was difficult to find, it seems to that
>> just because we were unable to agree exactly where it is
>> doesn’t imply that we’d be unable to agree when a
[ CC'ed to rethinking-cpan, since I assume it's halfway relevant. If not,
let me know, and I'll get out of your face. ]
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Why are people not rating modules?
Because rating modules is a monumental pain in the arse.
== The CPAN Ratings Way ==
Let's pretend you're J.
# from David Cantrell
# on Monday 30 June 2008 16:04:
>> If you truly have *the* Evil Cargo-Culted t/pod.t (which has been
>> previously discussed here and elsewhere), it fails spuriously for
>> some users.
>
>Is this The Evil?
>
>http://drhyde.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/drhyde/perlmodules/Cla
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 03:56:42PM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> # from David Cantrell
> >I favour the latter, although I find that having the Evil Cargo-Culted
> >t/pod.t in my distributions is rather useful for finding bugs before I
> >release my code so I'm gonna continue using it.
> If you truly
# from David Cantrell
# on Monday 30 June 2008 15:26:
>We're down to arguing about how to implement
>that check - whether it should be "ooh look, there's a t/pod.t file
>which says 'use Test::Pod'", or whether CPANTS should itself use
>Test::Pod to look for badly-formed POD.
The former implements
chromatic wrote:
On Monday 30 June 2008 15:03:14 David Cantrell wrote:
Surely you can at least check that all POD is "well-formed" without
running any code from the distribution in question?
Sure, but that's a very different question from "Did the author write useful
documentation for everythin
# from Aristotle Pagaltzis
# on Monday 30 June 2008 14:42:
>But *even if* the line was difficult to find, it seems to that
>just because we were unable to agree exactly where it is doesn’t
>imply that we’d be unable to agree when a metric is way over it.
>I can’t imagine anyone ever proposing a Ha
On Monday 30 June 2008 15:03:14 David Cantrell wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:42:23PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> > (The problem is that one of the aspects of kwalitee was supposed
> > to be that the module is properly documented ??? regardless of how
> > good the documentation is, i
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:42:23PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> (The problem is that one of the aspects of kwalitee was supposed
> to be that the module is properly documented ??? regardless of how
> good the documentation is, it should follow proper form, at
> least. Unfortunately, since a
* Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-30 23:15]:
> # from chromatic
> # on Monday 30 June 2008 13:01:
>
> >Where CPANTS works now is identifying actual, functional
> >problems with distributions: missing licensing information,
> >not extractable, POD errors, invalid META.yml, et cetera.
>
>
* chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-30 22:05]:
> Where CPANTS works now is identifying actual, functional
> problems with distributions: missing licensing information,
> not extractable, POD errors, invalid META.yml, et cetera.
>
> Where CPANTS doesn't work is attempting to bolt on several
>
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:22:49AM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> (possibly also using a personal list of preferred reviewers as another
> parameter.)
boardgamegeek.com does this pretty well. You can find your favorite reviewers
and search their ratings/reviews; people can also make explicitly-titl
# from chromatic
# on Monday 30 June 2008 13:01:
>Where CPANTS works now is identifying actual, functional problems with
>distributions: missing licensing information, not extractable, POD
> errors, invalid META.yml, et cetera.
There is some use in that, but what is the line before "&c"? It's a
On Monday 30 June 2008 12:50:09 Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> The kwalitee metrics should be useful data points when selecting between
> multiple modules, which means that the searcher (me) makes the
> decisions about which ones are important.
I don't think that's possible.
Where CPANTS works now is ide
# from chromatic
# on Monday 30 June 2008 11:19:
>On Monday 30 June 2008 04:01:01 Salve J Nilsen wrote:
>> If people are actually annoyed about getting in the "hall of shame",
>> we shouldn't remove the hall, but instead give them useful info on
>> how to get out of it. If authors add useless "wor
On Monday 30 June 2008 04:01:01 Salve J Nilsen wrote:
> If people are actually annoyed about getting in the "hall of shame", we
> shouldn't remove the hall, but instead give them useful info on how to get
> out of it. If authors add useless "workarounds" just to get on the top of
> the CPANTS game
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:16:01PM +0200, Salve J Nilsen wrote:
> Jonathan Rockway said:
> >* On Mon, Jun 30 2008, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> >>Why are people not rating modules, and how can we encourage people to
> >>do so?
> >I don't know exactly what this reason is, but I have a feeling it's
On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
- "I don't think I have anything to contribute."
Perhaps something similar to debian's popcon would allow some basic
statistics to be accumulated without requiring much effort. One
metric
would be how many clients have installed the dist
# from Salve J Nilsen
# on Monday 30 June 2008 10:16:
> - "I don't think I have anything to contribute."
Perhaps something similar to debian's popcon would allow some basic
statistics to be accumulated without requiring much effort. One metric
would be how many clients have installed the dist
# from Greg Sabino Mullane
# on Monday 30 June 2008 06:20:
>The important question to ask is,
>(assuming the ratings are something worth keeping),
They probably could be more useful if they could be used as a search
criteria (possibly also using a personal list of preferred reviewers as
anothe
Jonathan Rockway said:
* On Mon, Jun 30 2008, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Why are people not rating modules, and how can we encourage people to
do so?
Probably for the same reasons they don't read this mailing list,
contribute to perlmonks, attend YAPC, upload their own modules, etc.
I don't
* On Mon, Jun 30 2008, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Why are people not rating modules, and how can we encourage people to
> do so?
Probably for the same reasons they don't read this mailing list,
contribute to perlmonks, attend YAPC, upload their own modules, etc.
I don't know exactly what this r
> So, why do ratings make a difference here?
>
> Well, ratings provide at least a partial way for the community to solve
> the choice overload problem. If a search reveals a 4.5 star module with
> eight reviews, one doesn't feel compelled to look at the other options;
> the choice becomes clear.
Paul Fenwick said:
Jonathan Rockway wrote:
The same could be said for CPAN Ratings also. Why should my module
have 1 star next to it because any goof with a web browser can write a
review? Why is the opinion of someone with no ties to the community
considered relevant enough to show in the
On Sunday 29 June 2008 23:08:50 Jonathan Rockway wrote:
> * On Sun, Jun 29 2008, chromatic wrote:
> > However, does making CPAN a better place require publishing a Hall of
> > Shame on perl.org?
> >
> > http://cpants.perl.org/highscores/hall_of_shame
>
> Good point.
>
> The same could be said
G'day Jonathan / PQA,
Jonathan Rockway wrote:
The same could be said for CPAN Ratings also. Why should my module have
1 star next to it because any goof with a web browser can write a
review? Why is the opinion of someone with no ties to the community
considered relevant enough to show in the
31 matches
Mail list logo
