With regard to this thread about CGI::Prototype, and this thread about 'non-serious' modules, the issue of code QA seems to be coming up quite a bit lately.

While there is a framework in place for testing and peer review of modules, fully testing a module can be a very time consuming undertaking. Once you have

• Downloaded the module
• Resolved the dependencies
• Installed the module
• Familiarised yourself with the purpose and interfaces
• Written code to test out the module
• Reported on any problems

You've put quite a lot of time and effort in.

As an alternative for those who don't have the available time, can I suggest a second tier of testing? It would take minutes only to briefly review the perldoc only of a module, and report back to the author where

• the docs are unclear
• the docs are incomplete or sketchy
• the described syntax is nonintuitive or unfriendly
• (any other appropriate guidance or suggestions...)

To skim through the docs for an average module on CPAN, without attempting to download, install and run the code, could take perhaps 15 minutes to half an hour. I think many more people could spare that amount of time to review new or amended modules.

At the very least, as well as improving the quality of documentation, it would be a second pair of eyes looking at the design assumptions, which can only be a help.

If anyone agrees, perhaps this would be a good place to discuss what specific elements to look for in a review?

Charles

Update: Several people have raised the concern that this potentially would result in low quality feedback from people who have not used a module and hence may not understand what it is seeking to do. I should stress that this suggestion is intended to widen the range of modules that get some kind of review, rather than add to the volume of feedback on mature & widely used modules.

The following notes would be my suggested starting point:

• Only perform a POD review on modules that do not have a cpan rating
• State at the beginning of any feedback that this is a POD review only
• Only review modules that relate to an area in which you have some knowledge
• Don't necessarily expect an answer, and do not follow up your communication unless invited to do so
• Try to give suggestions rather than just criticism

---

---

Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!

Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.

Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.

Please read these before you post! —

• How do I compose an effective node title?
• How do I post a question effectively?
• Markup in the Monastery

Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:

a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr

You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)

	For:		Use:
	&		&
	<		&lt;
	>		&gt;
	[		&#91;
	]		&#93;

Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?

See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.