develooper Front page | | Postings from June 2008

Re: About tidying up Kwalitee metrics

Thread Previous
Paul Fenwick
June 25, 2008 03:54
Re: About tidying up Kwalitee metrics
Message ID:
G'day Thomas,

Thomas Klausner wrote:

> I've been very quite lately regarding CPANTS, mostly because I currently 
> have more interesting things to do (at the moment I'm in the lucky 
> situation that my day job is more fun than my non-paid open source 
> activities). This does not mean that I want to give up maintaing CPANTS.

Congratulations! ;)

> would of course love it even more, if you [all of you, not Slave] would 
> turn some of the suggestions into code...

In other words, put our code where our mouths are.  ;)  For those of you who 
want hacking the CPANTS game to be a game in itself, it now earns you ohloh 
kudos too:

> This could be quite easy for the various views etc. But I'm not sure how 
> to calculate a game score then. Do we end up with lots of different 
> games? But then, it's only the game (which still motivates a few 
> people..)

I've tossed out a few of these suggestions, so I guess I better start coming 
up with answers.  I'll start with what I think are the least controversial 
things, and get into more risky territory as I go.

== Honours ==

One of the proposals was that some of the optional metrics like "packaged by 
Debian" become "honours".  These are things which are (more-or-less) out of 
the author's control, but which we already have (disabled) tests for, and 
which are useful indicators of quality.  I suggest that completed honours 
are shown automatically for any distribution that has them.  Honours that a 
distribution doesn't have just don't get shown.

== Optional Metrics ==

I've also proposed that things that the author does have control over, but 
which they don't consider relevant to their distribution(s), can be switched 
off.  For the "optional" metrics these allegedly don't contribute to the 
game score[1], and so the ability to disable them *should* be a non-issue; 
you don't gain or lose game rankings by having them or not.  Optional 
metrics that an author doesn't want are simply not shown.

== Kwalitee Scores ==

Getting a little more controversial here, this means splitting the Kwalitee 
score into two.  Rather than showing an aggregate Kwalitee score for each 
distribution, we'd show the "Core Kwalitee" (for non-optional metric) and 
the "Bonus Kwalitee".  If you're a gamer, you'll be turning on bonus 
kwalitee metrics and trying to complete them to obtain the fabled Amulet of 
CPANTS.  If you're not a gamer, you'll turn them off, and that's that.

Whether that means we have *two* scoreboards I'll leave as an open question, 
but I'd be willing to bet the general consensus is that we should.



[1] However it appears that 
has scores going up to 128, which I understand means it *does* includes 
optional metrics. 
has a score of 124, and fails only one optional metric (which it would have 
passed if I had remembered 'make manifest').

Paul Fenwick <> |
Director of Training                   | Ph:  +61 3 9354 6001
Perl Training Australia                | Fax: +61 3 9354 2681

Thread Previous Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About