develooper Front page | perl.module-authors | Postings from June 2008

Re: Fwd: New CPANTS metrics

Thread Previous
From:
Eric Roode
Date:
June 10, 2008 09:10
Subject:
Re: Fwd: New CPANTS metrics
Message ID:
5c2834e00806100910n742295d3s7f3d527b2dccfe4c@mail.gmail.com
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Dave Rolsky <autarch@urth.org> wrote:
[...]
> Again, see above. These points codify existing community standards. The
> reason this is not much of a problem now in 2008 is probably because these
> standards have become so ingrained, both in terms of spreading the word, and
> in terms of making sure everyone is using standard tools that do the right
> thing (using EUMM, MI, or MB instead of hand-rolled Makefiles, for example).
>
> For the few cases where this isn't the case, having this codified may
> provide some useful feedback for module authors or potential end users.

Yes... I can see this.

[...]

>> uses it?   Some of my modules are very useful for end-users' code, not
>> so much for module developers' code.  So I get dinged for this?
>
> I think you're misinterpreting the meaning of the scores. You're not
> "getting dinged". You _are_ rewarded if your code is considered good enough
> to be required by something else. In other words, the point is a reward, but
> the lack of a point is not a punishment.

It is when modules and authors are ranked by this score.  That fosters
the perception that these are meaningful metrics and that a high
"purity" score is desirable.

-- Eric

Thread Previous


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About