* Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-03 02:55]:
> On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:44 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
>> Seriously? First you say you want them to play in their own
>> sandbox, then you say they’ve never asked anyone?
>
> Yes, both of those are true.
Yes, taking separately and literally,
* David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-02 19:55]:
> Instead of the annoyance of authors writing "warn $foo and exit
> 0", now they'll need to use configure_requires in META.yml to
> demand an up-to-date version of Module::Build.
Sigh. Conceded. I keep forgetting that when talking about the
to
# from Jan Dubois
# on Tuesday 02 September 2008 17:42:
>On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
>> $ tar tzvf perl-ldap-0.37.tar.gz
>> ?rw-rw-rw- root/root52 2008-08-28 12:52:15 pax_global_header
>>unknown file type `g'
>> drwxrwxr-x root/root 0 2008-08-28 12:52:15 perl-lda
On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:44 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Seriously? First you say you want them to play in their own
sandbox, then you say they’ve never asked anyone?
Yes, both of those are true.
Posting to a mailing list about how CPAN Testers' internals works is
not at all the same as rea
* Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-02 22:20]:
> Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
So there is Perl-QA, TAPx-Dev (where I’ve been dragging my feet
to subscribe), the IETF TAP list, the Module::Build and CPANPLUS
lists, and now cpan-testers-discuss. I am s
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
> $ tar tzvf perl-ldap-0.37.tar.gz
> ?rw-rw-rw- root/root52 2008-08-28 12:52:15 pax_global_header unknown
> fil
> e type `g'
> drwxrwxr-x root/root 0 2008-08-28 12:52:15 perl-ldap-0.37/
> -rw-rw-r-- root/root32 2008-08-28 12:52:15
# from David Cantrell
# on Tuesday 02 September 2008 17:23:
> Seeing that there's no
>Makefile.PL in that directory, it creates one for you, and then
>everything goes pear-shaped because that Makefile.PL doesn't list any
>dependencies.
Would putting "everything goes pear-shaped" in the report tit
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 04:38:20PM -0500, Graham Barr wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:10 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
> >>I already know that my distributions don't work if you don't
> >>install the
> >>dependencies
> >I'm pretty damned sure that this a straw man. Can you point at any
> >regular test
# from Gabor Szabo
# on Tuesday 02 September 2008 14:42:
>> I'm pretty damned sure that this a straw man. Can you point at any
>> regular tester who *right now* is regularly failing to follow the
>> dependency chain?
>
>actually both my recent modules get tons of FAIL reports as they only
> have
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 04:38:20PM -0500, Graham Barr wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:10 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
> >>I already know that my distributions don't work if you don't
> >>install the
> >>dependencies
> >I'm pretty damned sure that this a straw man. Can you point at any
> >regular test
"Gabor Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>
> On the other hand I don't understand why was this sent:
> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2008/08/msg2102300.html
>
> It is trying to test a module on 5.6.2 while the module declares both
> in META.yml and in Build.PL
> that it
Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
>
> It's frustrating that so much of the perl-qa traffic is about CPAN
> Testers, a project that I'm not particularly interested in because
> they are not at all interested in me.
Really
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:21 AM, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On the other hand I don't understand why was this sent:
>> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2008/08/msg2102300.html
>>
>> It is trying
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the other hand I don't understand why was this sent:
> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2008/08/msg2102300.html
>
> It is trying to test a module on 5.6.2 while the module declares both
> in META.yml and in
I am personally quite satisfied with the CPAN Testers though I do think that
there is too much noise (false FAIL reports) which mean the average CPAN
user who is not familiar with the situation will be misled.
AFAIK Barbie and co are working on a better schema for the database that
soon will impro
On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:10 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
I already know that my distributions don't work if you don't
install the
dependencies
I'm pretty damned sure that this a straw man. Can you point at any
regular tester who *right now* is regularly failing to follow the
dependency chain?
We
On Sep 2, 2008, at 4:23 PM, chromatic wrote:
Changing the way some 6000 registered authors work to meet the needs
of one
particular domain purportedly for their benefit seems to be the
wrong way
around, at least to me.
Does anyone on CPAN Testers have any idea what their constituencies
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 14:09:04 David Golden wrote:
> Remember -- this whole thread started with "why exit 0?" Is that
> really too much to ask an author with particularly unusual
> requirements to learn and use?
Changing the way some 6000 registered authors work to meet the needs of one
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 01:23:31PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> If the CPAN Testers client already requires developers to modify their
> distributions to tease useful information out of reports, then CPAN Testers
> has failed at being an accurate representation of how distributions fare for
> norma
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> exit if $ENV{AUTOMATED_TESTING};
>
> Which removed the usefulness of those that do testing correctly and submit
> useful reports
My point was that authors can opt-out if "keeping up" is too annoying.
I would hope that aut
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
There is one:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If people would take their complaints and brainstorms about CPAN
Testers there first, then it wouldn't clutter perl-qa.
Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-02 22:40]:
>> For all of the bogus reports I get, I'd rather get the bogus
>> ones along with the good ones than nothing at all. I'd much
>> prefer that I find out immediately if there's a disaster rather
>> than have someone email me
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:41 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
It's called [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's great. So can this all be taken over there, please?
Thanks,
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:p
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 03:17:56PM -0500, Andy Lester wrote:
> Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
It's called [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence
Blessed are the pessimists, for they test their backups
On 2 Sep 2008, at 16:23, chromatic wrote:
Like Andy Lester suggests, I'm obviously not the target audience of
CPAN
Testers. I don't believe normal users are the target audience of CPAN
Testers. Who is?
How do you define "normal users". At work we're normal users - for our
definition and
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-02 22:40]:
> For all of the bogus reports I get, I'd rather get the bogus
> ones along with the good ones than nothing at all. I'd much
> prefer that I find out immediately if there's a disaster rather
> than have someone email me and say "this broke our software
--- On Tue, 2/9/08, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like Andy Lester suggests, I'm obviously not the target
> audience of CPAN
> Testers. I don't believe normal users are the target
> audience of CPAN
> Testers. Who is?
I'll hold up my hand. For all of the bogus reports I get, I'd rat
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 02:53:30PM -0500, Graham Barr wrote:
>I would contest that the Makefile.PL or Build.PL cannot
> be "known" to be a failure of the distribution, so the "Artificial
> Intelligence" that you have programmed into CPAN testers is flawed.
That's why I default to
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 12:45:19 David Cantrell wrote:
> And no matter how much certain people might bitch and whine about how
> users ought to upgrade their toolchain, the fact is that they don't. I
> wish they did, but they don't.
If the CPAN Testers client already requires developers to
Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
It's frustrating that so much of the perl-qa traffic is about CPAN
Testers, a project that I'm not particularly interested in because
they are not at all interested in me.
Thanks,
xoxo,
Andy
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROT
On Sep 2, 2008, at 2:55 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
Helpful hint: there's a difference between getting your name listed on
an obscure web page and a reward.
A reward would be something like a bar of chocolate, or a pay rise.
Depends on who you are.
xoa
--
Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] =>
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:41:08AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2008 07:11:12 David Cantrell wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:26:11PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> > > (Step three is probably to stop rewarding people for sending ever-more
> > > reports and start rewarding peop
On Sep 2, 2008, at 2:04 PM, David Golden wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:24 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... but every time I see yet another arcane cantrip to add to my
projects to
work around brokenness in CPAN Testers clients, a little bit more
of my
motivation to care slips a
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:17:49AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2008, at 17:22, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> >Ask the maintainers of M::B, EU::MM and M::I to all export a
> >`halt` function that does just this? That would also provide
> >a convenient spot in the respective modules? do
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:24 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... but every time I see yet another arcane cantrip to add to my projects to
> work around brokenness in CPAN Testers clients, a little bit more of my
> motivation to care slips away.
You only need one and you'll never need to
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Does the report identify an actual failure for the common use case of CPAN
> installation or does it identify a failure in configuring the CPAN Testers
> client?
>
> * Does the report identify a known failure already reported
David Golden wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Christopher H. Laco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, the second one does error in the middle of the output...barely.
>> Had the errors been after the 50k, the report would be doubly useless:
>>
>> [Output truncated after 50K]
>>
>> does no goo
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Christopher H. Laco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, the second one does error in the middle of the output...barely.
> Had the errors been after the 50k, the report would be doubly useless:
>
> [Output truncated after 50K]
>
> does no good when the sole purpose of s
# from David Golden
# on Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:01:
>> You encourage what you measure,
>
>In theory, yes. In practice, that hasn't been the experience to date.
> ...
>Being snide about peoples volunteer efforts isn't particularly
>constructive.
And you discourage what you tax.
--Eric
--
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 10:48:38 David Golden wrote:
> Instead of the annoyance of authors writing "warn $foo and exit 0",
> now they'll need to use configure_requires in META.yml to demand an
> up-to-date version of Module::Build. And it still won't work on an
> older Perl with an older CPA
Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
>> On Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:01:44 David Golden wrote:
>>
You encourage what you measure,
>>> In theory, yes. In practice, that hasn't been the experience to date.
>>> Testers over 70K:
>>>
>>> 1 587018 Chris Williams (BINGOS)
>>> 2 318
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:41 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://perl.grango.org/testers.html
>
> Helpful hint: you can get the top spot if you forge reports and don't mess
> with all of that nasty downloading, configuring, compiling, and testing.
> Just send PASS, FAIL, or NA for rand
chromatic wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:01:44 David Golden wrote:
>
>>> You encourage what you measure,
>> In theory, yes. In practice, that hasn't been the experience to date.
>
>> Testers over 70K:
>>
>> 1587018 Chris Williams (BINGOS)
>> 2318527 Andreas J. König (ANDK)
>>
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 11:01:44 David Golden wrote:
> > You encourage what you measure,
>
> In theory, yes. In practice, that hasn't been the experience to date.
> Testers over 70K:
>
> 1 587018 Chris Williams (BINGOS)
> 2 318527 Andreas J. König (ANDK)
> 3 188392 David Gold
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:17 PM, David E. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ask the maintainers of M::B, EU::MM and M::I to all export a
>> `halt` function that does just this? That would also provide
>> a convenient spot in the respective modules' docs for related
>> CPAN Testers arcana, so peo
On Tuesday 02 September 2008 07:11:12 David Cantrell wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:26:11PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> > (Step three is probably to stop rewarding people for sending ever-more
> > reports and start rewarding people for sending *useful* reports.)
>
> There's a reward? Damn, I'
On Sep 1, 2008, at 17:22, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Ask the maintainers of M::B, EU::MM and M::I to all export a
`halt` function that does just this? That would also provide
a convenient spot in the respective modules’ docs for related
CPAN Testers arcana, so people wouldn’t have to stumble ont
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:26:11PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> (Step three is probably to stop rewarding people for sending ever-more reports
> and start rewarding people for sending *useful* reports.)
There's a reward? Damn, I'd better automate more stuff!
--
David Cantrell | London Perl Monger
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 08:17:56AM -0400, David Golden wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Joe McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah, I do that for GraphViz::Data::Structure (for graphviz) - and I still
> > get FAILs. So how does one get round that?
> You have:
> if (!$dot_version) {
49 matches
Mail list logo
