On 2016-01-05 04:23:23, sisyphus1@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Show quoted text> Hi Slaven,
>
> I considered doing it under ACME but I thought maybe some smokers were
> being
> configured to avoid testing modules in that namespace. Is that
> incorrect ?
Good point. It's possible that some smokers are configured to exclude all Acme::* modules (mine is not, but I don't know for others).
Show quoted text> If my concerns about that are unfounded then I think that your
> suggestion of
> Acme::CPAN::Testers::CompilationFailure is a good one - as, too, are
> your
> other suggestions.
>
> I don't mind what the module's name is, as long as it's not in a
> namespace
> that's likely to be excluded by cpantesters.
>
> So ... of the 3 alternatives you've provided, is there one that has an
> advantage over the others in terms of attracting broadest coverage
> from the
> testers ?
Typical strategies to pick distributions for testing are:
(1) test only recently uploaded stuff
(2) test a fixed list of (important?) modules
(3) test everything
(4) don't run a smoker, but send reports while installing CPAN modules for real usage
Based on this list there's no preference for any of these strategies. But whatever namespace you pick, you have probably to create regular dummy releases, so the smokers using the first strategy pick your module.
Otherwise I would vote for the CPAN::Test::Dummy::Perl5::*, as there is already a lot of stuff here and your module could serve as another testcase for cpan installers & reporting modules.
Regards,
Slaven
Show quoted text>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slaven_Rezic via RT
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 5:34 PM
> To: undisclosed-recipients:
> Subject: [rt.cpan.org #110908] Use a better namespace?
>
> Tue Jan 05 01:34:28 2016: Request 110908 was acted upon.
> Transaction: Ticket created by SREZIC
> Queue: Test-Broken
> Subject: Use a better namespace?
> Broken in: 0.01
> Severity: (no value)
> Owner: Nobody
> Requestors: SREZIC@cpan.org
> Status: new
> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=110908 >
>
>
> I think the module should use a different namespace. There are already
> existing modules just for the purpose of generating special reports,
> and
> your module could fit into one of these namespaces. Possible
> namespaces:
>
> - CPAN::Test::Dummy::Perl5::* - this one has a lot of modules just for
> testing different configuration setups (Makefile.PL and Build.PL),
> with or
> without dependencies, with circular dependencies, or testing fails
> like
> CPAN::Test::Dummy::Perl5::Make::FailConfigRequires. I think your
> module
> would fit as CPAN::Test::Dummy::Perl5::Make::CompilationFails or so
>
> - Acme::CPAN::Testers::* - a series of modules from BINGOS. There's
> already
> a Acme::CPAN::Testers::UNKNOWN, but this is for different kind of
> UNKNOWN
> reports, not for compilation failures. Again, your module could fit as
> Acme::CPAN::Testers::CompilationFailure or so
>
> - Devel::Fail::* - a smaller collection from MTHURN. Again, your
> module
> could fit as Devel::Fail::MakeCompile or so
