FAQ
CPANdeps (http://deps.cpantesters.org) has been providing useful
information on water quality. It might be enough to make a better or
opinionated presentation of it for the upriver authors. IMHO META
files and min version specification depends more on when a
distribution is released and don't well fit for water quality metrics.

2015-12-23 9:16 GMT+09:00 David Golden <xdg@xdg.me>:
I thought the "min perl version" is a tough metric without considering what
version of Perl it will actually run on. I would refine that metric to
"declared min perl version >= actual perl version required". Figuring out
the latter could perhaps be done via CPAN Testers -- if all of 5.6 fails,
then we know it's 5.8 or better. But if there is at least one 5.6 pass,
then it works on 5.6. And if it works on 5.6, I think omission of a
minimum perl version is no big deal.
This is something I've been wishing to add to Kwalitee but haven't
because of a performance issue of min version detectors.
I don't want to see go down the Kwalitee route where people put a minimum
perl version of "5" or something just to get a better water quality score.

Generally, I think some subset of the core Kwalitee metrics and some
adaptation of your adoption criteria (e.g. time since any release by author)
would be a place to look for "water quality" metrics. I do think you need
to find a way to distinguish what water quality is trying to measure
distinct from Kwalitee.
+1

Kenichi
David

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Neil Bowers wrote:

At the London Perl Workshop I gave a talk on the CPAN River, and how
development and release practices should mature as a dist moves up river.
This was prompted by the discussions we had at Berlin earlier this year.

Writing the talk prompted a bunch of ideas, one of which is having a
“water quality” metric, which gives some indication of whether a dist is a
good one to rely on (needs a better name). I’ve come up with a first
definition, and calculated the metric for the different stages of the river:

http://neilb.org/2015/12/22/cpan-river-water-quality.html


Any thoughts on what factors should be included in such a metric? I think
it should really include factors that it would be hard for anyone to argue
with. Currently the individual factors are:

Not having too many CPAN Testers fails
Having a META.json or META.yml file
Specifying the min perl version required for the dist


Cheers,
Neil

At some point I’ll share the slides from my talk, but slideshare doesn’t
handle keynote presentations, and the exported powerpoint from keynote is
broken (neither powerpoint nor slideshare can handle it!)


--
David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC/Github: @xdg

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 5 of 21 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupcpan-workers @
categoriesperl
postedDec 22, '15 at 11:05p
activeJan 4, '16 at 9:39p
posts21
users12
websitecpan.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase