Leader of Birmingham.pm [pm.org] and a CPAN author [cpan.org]. Co-organised YAPC::Europe in 2006 and the 2009 QA Hackathon, responsible for the YAPC Conference Surveys [yapc-surveys.org] and the QA Hackathon [qa-hackathon.org] websites. Also the current caretaker for the CPAN Testers websites and data stores.
If you really want to find out more, buy me a Guinness
Following suggestions from others, I have now extended the Failure Counts pages of the CPAN Testers Statistics site. Firstly, more fields are exposed to highlight the date the PAUSE post appeared on the list, the total passes, total reports and the percentage of failures against total reports. Secondly, is that you can list according to failure counts or failure percentages by clicking the relevant column heading.
Some things to bear in mind though:
The problem with duplicate reports though is problematic. Agreeing that a report for a distribution that matches the tester, platform and perl be considered a dupicate might be posible, but there may be good reasons why matching reports may occur. The same tester might have multiple setups for the same environment, such as one setup with no 3rd party libraries, while others might have specific library setups. It would be nice to allow the tester themselves to submit a report that indicates a specific submission entered previous was a mistake and should be ignored. This is most useful when a FAIL report is sent, only to discover that the test environment was incorrect, and subsequent fix and retest produces a PASS report. But how can a tester easily indicate a particular report should be ignored? There are couple ways I thought of:
At the moment I believe only CPAN Testers and CPAN Testers Statistics would make use of this, but in the longer term, it may make the reporting mechanism a little more reliable, and others may have more confidence in the reporting information that is provided.
Personally I think the second is the better option, but it does require a lot of changes and implimentation. Rather than rushing ahead and trying to solve the problem, I thought it better to make the suggestion and see what others think. Maybe there is an even better solution I've not thought of. So