I'm mostly surprised at the way-upriver distributions that lack it. I
wonder how many of those are dual-life that don't ship with the kind of
tooling that "CPAN best practice" use.

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Kenichi Ishigaki wrote:

2015-12-25 3:00 GMT+09:00 Karen Etheridge <perl@froods.org>:
I think “has a META.yml or META.json” is worth keeping in
I'm surprised this one is being discussed at all. IMO, not having a META
file should disqualify the distribution from being considered at all. At
Berlin last year we talked about making it mandatory, and held off "for now"
so the outliers could be fixed. Having META should be non-negotiable for a
well-formed CPAN distribution.
I agree with this, and if the water quality metrics should be complete
and everything should be mentioned, the metric must be included
without doubt. However, I'm less sure if it makes sense to stress it
as a new, small number of water quality metrics just because only
about 3 percent of distributions shipped in 2015 didn't have META.yml
already and the percentage of failing distributions is getting smaller
year by year, so there might be little room to improve for most of the
active authors. Of course, It would help older, possibly abondoned
distributions, but that's a different story.

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Neil Bowers <neil.bowers@cogendo.com>
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.
I’m not convinced on min version either, but am leaning towards
it, if we can come up with a definition that’s practical and useful.

I think “has a META.yml or META.json” is worth keeping in, as there are
number of benefits to having one, and I suspect there’s at least some
correlation between dists that don’t have a META file and dists that
listed all prereqs (eg in the Makefile.PL).

That said, I’m really just experimenting here, trying to find things
are useful indicators for whether a dist is good to rely on.


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

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 19 of 21 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupcpan-workers @
postedDec 22, '15 at 11:05p
activeJan 4, '16 at 9:39p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase