jns at gellyfish.com
Mon Apr 7 15:44:30 BST 2008
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 14:50 +0100, Iain Barnett wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2008, at 9:27 am, Dave Cross wrote:
> > Do you know that you can already rate CPAN modules? See http://
> > cpanratings.perl.org/.
> > Also CPANTS (http://cpants.perl.org/) includes measures for
> > "has_test_pod_coverage" and "no_pod_errors". Is that a move in the
> > right direction?
> Yep, I've seen it but very seldom are things rated more than twice. I
> was thinking more along the lines of auto-checking (perhaps a
> regex? ;) to how fully the docs are done - a standards checker, if
> you like.
> Maybe several scores - one for tests, one for docs, one for ratings,
> one for downloads? Otherwise it ends up like the Amazon book reviews,
> I loved it = 5, I didn't like it = 1.
That's basically what CPANTS does - it's really a very crude indication
of Kwalitee and is very easy to game to get a high score for an
otherwise rather crap module. However this in conjunction with cpan
testers and other available metrics does give some reasonable indication
of whether a module is even worth looking at.
More information about the london.pm