A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
On the other hand, the downside with this is that modules could
well have URIs that take actions in them,
*pulls out HTTP RFC*
*starts beating random bad programmers over the head with it*
`GET` SHOULD BE SAFE AND IDEMPOTENT!
`GET` SHOULD BE SAFE AND
Hi!
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:07:28PM -0500, Chris Dolan wrote:
I posted all of my thoughts on the Perl-QA wiki here:
http://perl-qa.yi.org/index.php/CPANTS_Quality_Goals
Cool!
I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
again to Gabor Szabo for implementing it).
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:07:28PM -0500, Chris Dolan wrote:
I posted all of my thoughts on the Perl-QA wiki here:
http://perl-qa.yi.org/index.php/CPANTS_Quality_Goals
Cool!
I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
again to Gabor
Hi!
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:24:16PM +0200, David Landgren wrote:
Oww, that includes all of mine, even though they state clearly in the
docs that they are distributed under the perl license.
I assume this looks at the META.yml license key? I guess it's time to
take
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
Maybe this metric should even check if there's a license in META.yml
AND a pod heading namen LICENSE, so that humans and tools
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
If you're going that way, also check for a qr/LICENSE/i file in the
distribution directory.
Maybe this metric should even check if there's a license in
On Sep 13, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
Maybe this metric should even check if there's a license in META.yml
AND a
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 16:06:42 +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote:
It should also check if the license field in META.yml is one of the
'approved' licenses, I guess this would be the list of words that can be
used in Module::Build.
This list is lame, it's not a canonical format. For example perl
is
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, the metric currently checks if there's a 'license' field in
META.yml
META.yml is supposed to get most of distribution information in a
format that it is safe and comprehensible. No need for further
heuristics. It is a good thing that
On 13 Sep 2006, at 05:37, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
(For the sarcasm impaired, if you're just going to store the whole
post-install source tarball you might as well just grab it from
CPAN again)
[snip]
Isn't the post-install source tree potentially different in useful
ways from the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Klausner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I added a few things, most notably the new has_license metric (thanks
again to Gabor Szabo for implementing it).
(BTW, there was quite a drop in the CPANTS game highscore lists, as lots
of dists don't come with a license
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris
Dolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 12, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Salve J Nilsen wrote:
Any metric that catches bad things, particularly bad technical
things, is going to be just fine.
Metrics that try to push good behavior are fraught with trouble,
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Adriano
Ferreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
Tell one place where people should look to have
brian d foy wrote:
Thinking about this further and talking to a few people about it, the
only place that makes any sense is the source code file itself. After
installation, the rest of the distribution will disappear. The license
has to stay with the source.
Nit -- .pod files also stay around
Adrian Howard wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006, at 05:37, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
(For the sarcasm impaired, if you're just going to store the whole
post-install source tarball you might as well just grab it from CPAN
again)
[snip]
Isn't the post-install source tree potentially different
On 13 Sep 2006, at 19:28, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Adrian Howard wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006, at 05:37, Michael G Schwern wrote:
[snip]
(For the sarcasm impaired, if you're just going to store the whole
post-install source tarball you might as well just grab it from CPAN
again)
[snip]
Isn't the
On 9/13/06, brian d foy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Adriano
Ferreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/13/06, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe it would be reasonable to also check for a POD-Heading named
LICENSE, but that's definitly more error-prone.
It's on its way to the CPAN. There's a tiny API change which probably won't
affect most folks (first Changes item), but I really needed to do this to
simplify the code.
0.22 13 September 2006
- Removed buggy support for multi-line chunks from streams. If your
streams
David Golden wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
But with that in mind, I still don't see much point in running them at
install-time, so lately I've modified my pod.t test so that it's skip
message is now skipped: Author tests not required for installation
or the like, and the tests now only run when
19 matches
Mail list logo
