All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
use Perl Log In
barbie (2653)
reversethis-{ku. ... m} {ta} {eibrab}
http://barbie.missbarbell.co.uk/
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
Links:
Memoirs of a Roadie [missbarbell.co.uk]
[pm.org]
CPAN Testers Reports [cpantesters.org]
YAPC Conference Surveys [yapc-surveys.org]
QA Hackathon [qa-hackathon.org]
CPAN Testers Stats - March update
For those interested, the latest data for March has been uploaded. Interesting to note that the top 5 report posters have all ramped up their report submissions this month. Chris is steaming ahead, with nearly twice as many submissions as his nearest rival. Recent recruit to CPAN Testing, Dave Cantrell, has made a dramatic climb up the leader board, and is sure to feature in the top 10 next month.
Looking at the new table Failure Counts, I've been alarmed at how many distributions have recently been uploaded and failed on all platforms. Some are minor bugs, which should have been spotted by the author before uploading, but some look to be a bit more problematic. However, 43 out of 100 in the above table, were from uploads made in 2007 and all produced FAIL or UNKNOWN test reports, with no PASSes or NAs at all. I guess this was the intention of the table in the first place, to try and highlight modules that were failing badly when they were uploaded, and in that respect it's a success. But it would have been much nicer to have only seen modules uploaded, long before CPANTS appeared, in the list.
I got a few responses to my mailout to testers for mapping their email to their real name, but it would seem that despite my efforts we have tipped over the 1000 testers edge again. Expect a bit of investigation work to bring that back under for next month
--Larry Wall in stab.c from the perl source code
Not the intent at all (Score:1)
I preferred the ranking based on absolute FAIL totals because it highlights old and important modules like, say, Template Toolkit that are failing a lot. My assumption is that the more-important the module, the more times it will be tested, and thus 10 fails out of 10 testers on a little unimportant module is equal to 10 out of 150 testers on something critical like File::Spec.
The way you ha
Re: (Score:2)
Is that singular or plural? If the former, there is the absolute failure counts [grango.org] as well ;)
Re: (Score:1)