Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

TeeJay (2309)

TeeJay
  (email not shown publicly)
http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk/
Working in Truro
Graduate with BSc (Hons) in Computer Systems and Networks
pm : london.pm, bath.pm, devoncornwall.pm
lug : Devon & Cornwall LUG
CPAN : TEEJAY [cpan.org]
irc : TeeJay
skype : hashbangperl
livejournal : hashbangperl [livejournal.com]
flickr :hashbangperl [flickr.com]

Journal of TeeJay (2309)

Friday December 24, 2004
04:49 AM

sorry barbie - thanks for the good work

[ #22445 ]
I just read barbie's journal entry about cpan-testers. Its pretty upsetting that somebody who has put in some good work in improving the standards of information and code in CPAN is driven from constructive work by whinging.

I have receieved a handful of fail reports and rt resports from cpan testers and rt.cpan.org. I get lots of bug reports from non-perl users for autodia so its water off a ducks back to me. But its valuable nonetheless.

Usually I will try and fix any problem straight away, but because cpan-testers is pretty automated I know that if any showstopper stops my code from installing or compiling it should usually get caught and reported back to me.

I'd really like to say thanks to barbie and the cpan-testers, they have ensured that my code is more likely to compile and install on places I either can't or just can't be bothered to to test it.


List all Journal entries
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

sorry barbie - thanks for the good work 4 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Part of the problem is that it's one-to-many, so while Barbie gets lots of whinges back when CPANPLUS goes tits-up, the sender thinks he's just whinging once. I know I get frustrated by tester reports falsely accusing me of missing PREREQ_PM because it causes me to spend a period of time checking the code out of CVS and loading it into an editor, and then wondering if I've done something wrong. The trouble is clearly that many people complain to Barbie because he's such a prolific tester (and a very useful
  • I'll put my hand up and admit it. I've moaned at the CPAN testers. I'll continue doing it too. What I have moaned about is testers who submit their failure results without doing even minimal checking that their results are correct or, indeed, sane. Or about testers who don't even bother to read the documentation before submitting their failures. That is, testers who bizarrely think that quantity is better than quality!

    Let's look at it from the other side of the fence. A few days ago I got a test fai

  • I also very much appreciate the efforts of Barbie and the other testers. The people who complain about a failure report implying there are bugs in their code are being bloody ridiculous.
    • I agree. I'd never complain about that - I *welcome* genuine bug reports. However, I've had snotty auto-generated emails from some of the CPAN testers which were *not* to do with bugs, they were the result of stupid people blindly submitting their results without thinking.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.