Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Your skill will accomplish
what the force of many cannot

comment on

( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??
I really like the reviews section for module reviews. To me it is much better than cpanratings, as it has discussion, which puts a reviewer's comments in context. Cpanratings does not even have the module author's right of reply. I have an issue with this with one of my modules, but I digress.

My issue concerns updating reviews I have written in the past. An extreme hypothetical case is a module which I have written a review of X::Y praising it as the best thing since sliced bread. But I now want to replace it with a review saying that the module X::Y sucks and you should really be using X::Z instead.

I have so far contributed 3 module reviews to PM, and I have updates I would like to apply to all of them. My problem is that I am not sure if I should replace what I wrote previously with a new review, or whether I should leave the original reviews intact, following my own guidelines for updating an existing node.

The first approach leads to something which is more immediately readable to someone using the review as a reference, but much of the discussion is probably no longer relevant as it pertained to the original review.

This brings to mind the fruits of some beer fuelled discussion at a meet, about two dimensional wikis (this was vapourware, we didn't get as far as turning the idea into code). For each root node in the wiki, one axis is the tree of discussion threads, and the other is the root node's revision history. When going to each revision, appropriate discussion threads would be displayed - appropriate to the particular revision. Being a wiki, the restrictions on who can edit were not applicable (each discussion node would also have a complete revision history).

Whilst I think that the 2D approach is probably not appropriate for PM, I am wondering if there is some way of laying out a review, which does not detract from the clarity, but does not invalidate the prior discussion.

I wonder whether a solution to this this could apply to other sections of the monastery, like the Code Catacombs and Tutorials.

I'm Not Just Another Perl Hacker

In reply to Maintaining module reviews by rinceWind

Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":

  • Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
    <code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
  • Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
  • Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.
Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (3)
As of 2023-12-02 06:12 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    What's your preferred 'use VERSION' for new CPAN modules in 2023?

    Results (13 votes). Check out past polls.