Devel::Cover recommendations... or maybe not? - !not
Richard.Foley at rfi.net
Thu Mar 15 07:56:13 GMT 2007
On Thursday 15 March 2007 00:39, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:18:26PM +0100, Luis Motta Campos wrote:
> > The POD scares everybody, stating clearly "this is alfa code".
> > It's almost like saying "go away" what is pretty strange for an open-
> > source module...
> After six years of people saying this
Someone got through - yeehaa!
> That's why Devel::Cover is still alpha software, and that's what being
> alpha software means for Devel::Cover. Since I now realise that this is
> probably not what most people understand when they read my
> documentation, I'll just have to explain things in more detail.
The point Luis is probably making is that you shouldn't have to explain it at
I understand your rationale, Paul, and at the end of the day, it's your module
actually, so you can write what the heck you like about it. But it's just
possible that the tone of "this is alpha code" puts off those very people who
are worried about quality enough to be looking at coverage tools in the first
place. Just MHO.
Any of us who have used Devel::Cover, know it's a solid and very useful tool,
but that's a bit of a chicken and egg position to access, when you first come
across the choice.
> I suppose I should really be glad that not too many people read the docs.
Just every now and then ;-)
Ciao - shorter than aufwiedersehen
ps. Please resend any bounced or unanswered emails.
More information about the london.pm