Ken Williams wrote:
In order of preference: 2, 1, 3. I think annocpan can be good, but I
hate it when people post bug notices on it - it makes it seem like the
intent is to "name & shame" the author rather than get the bug fixed.
We're seeing a fragmentation of information about modules on CPAN. Annocpan
shouldn't be used in place of RT, but I think it has a role in addition to
RT. The list of bugs on RT isn't the first thing I check after reading the
docs. (Maybe I should.) And many times, long standing bugs don't get
documented in the Pod file by the developer.
Some modules have a long develoment or bug-fix cycle, and flagging gotchas
and workarounds on annocpan seems reasonable. (E.g. the incompatibilities
between Module::Build / CPANPLUS about requires and build_requires.) I'm
not sure the purpose is to "name and shame" so much as help the next poor
programmer from hitting the potholes and frustration. (From the developer's
side, I can see how it *feels* like name and shame, though.)
David
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
|
