Hi!
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:51:06PM +0200, Philippe BooK Bruhat wrote:
Le mardi 23 mai 2006 ? 21:56, Thomas Klausner ?crivait:
And no, I won't take the fun out of CPANTS.
Then why did you filter out the Acme modules from the prereq lists? Mmm?
For example, see
Hi!
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:35:14PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
What the hell is the run thing in the latest run... is the run just
half-way through or something?
that was a bug in the templates. resolved now.
(FYI: 'run' stores when the data was analysed (using what version of
cpants))
Hi!
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 09:51:06PM +0200, Philippe BooK Bruhat wrote:
Le mardi 23 mai 2006 ? 21:56, Thomas Klausner ?crivait:
And no, I won't take the fun out of CPANTS.
Then why did you filter out the Acme modules from the prereq lists? Mmm?
For example, see
techniques to shrink
them down (seperating the docs into *.pod or something)
I do promise to get back to you once PPI is safe for all of CPAN without
going haywire.
- CPANTS as a multiplayer online game is an easy way to get peoples
attention without totaly offending them. I /could/ send
Oh, and by the way...
What the hell is the run thing in the latest run... is the run just
half-way through or something?
Adam K
- Original Message
From: David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
formatted. E.g. I believe this is sufficient to get the Kwalitee point:
# t/pod_coverage.t
__END__
use Test::Pod::Coverage;
What? You think that's bad? Here are three lines from Acme::Code::Police:
Le mardi 23 mai 2006 à 21:56, Thomas Klausner écrivait:
And no, I won't take the fun out of CPANTS.
Then why did you filter out the Acme modules from the prereq lists? Mmm?
For example, see http://cpants.perl.org/dist/Bot-MetaSyntactic
and
* Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-05-23T12:46:13]
So I guess its down to this: pick a goal. Either drop the gaming aspects or
drop any remaining pretense that its a measurement of module quality. Since
the whole kwalitee thing is pretty flimsy to begin with, I'd go with just
making
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
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:18:48 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
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.
Likewise it should not test
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
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
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 10:34 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 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 5/23/06, David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does is_prereq improve quality?
Can we avoid getting side-tracked by individual indicators? Move it to
another thread, please.
Cpants being a game was a good
thing!
See, now that's why I write stuff down. On mailing lists. So someone else
can remember it for me. ;)
The key is that we're playing for different goals. Schwern was
saying that the improvement of the modules is a game. PerlGirl is
making a game out
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 07:35, 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.
Contra: File::Find.
--
distribution
kwalitee is basically the only halfway serious option. Even this
doesn't work all the time (see has_test_pod*).
Dist tests are low-hanging fruits. But I'll promise I'll reach
further. Later...
- CPANTS as a multiplayer online game is an easy way to get peoples
attention
David Golden wrote:
How does is_prereq improve quality?
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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
