in reply to Re: X-platform testers wanted: new version of Devel::Size
in thread X-platform testers wanted: new version of Devel::Size

Why not just upload a dev release to the CPAN and let the CPAN-testers do it for you?
  1. Firstly, it isn't my module so I can't do that.

    I made changes to solve a particular requirement I had, namely sizing data structures close to the limits of my physical address space. They proved so successful that I thought it worth a little effort to try and make them generally available.

  2. Second, I need people, not automated test bots who's purpose in life is generate meaningless statistics.

    The code is XS/C, and the changes I made introduced some particularly difficult elements to port cross platform. Namely unions of pointers and bit-field structs.

    I'm a one-platform/one-compiler developer, and I knew I would need expert assistance to stand a chance of making this work on little-endian/big-endian 32/64-bit etc. Not just those with spare bandwidth and cpu to run automated smoke tests.

  3. I needed people happy to volunteer their time to work with me.

'nuff said?

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."
  • Comment on Re^2: X-platform testers wanted: new version of Devel::Size

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: X-platform testers wanted: new version of Devel::Size
by DrHyde (Prior) on Oct 07, 2008 at 10:00 UTC
    Firstly, it isn't my module so I can't do that.

    I believe you can, it just won't get indexed.

    Second, I need people, not automated test bots who's purpose in life is generate meaningless statistics.

    That isn't their purpose. However, if you display that sort of attitude then the people volunteering their time and resources might ignore you. So I can see why you might have that incorrect belief.

    I needed people happy to volunteer their time to work with me.
    When module authors contact me about test results that I've sent in, I'm happy to work with them as long as they're polite. Other testers try to be as helpful.
[reply]

      It was suggested that I should set the record straight with regard to what I mean by "meaningless statistics".

      This is what the cpan-testers report about my Win32::Fmode module:

      CPAN Testers PASS (2) FAIL (3) NA (7)

      And the associated graphic.

      So, it looks like that module has more fails than passes and a preponderance of orange and red.

      But of course, any human tester would instantly recognise that an module called Win32::... isn't going to build on Darwin, FreeBSD or Linux.....which is why I assumed that these must be test bots.

      Do you still consider my drawing the conclusion that these were bots producing meaningless statistics "impolite"?

      My li'l 'ol module served it purpose and was long ago superceded, but how many other authors hard work are these meaningless numbers damaging?

      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
[reply]

      That's what I thought. Shame you didn't say that earlier!

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom