"be consistent" | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
I think we need to do something about this. Michael Schwern's CPANTS project looked promosing, but then he abandoned it. I'd like to see peer review of CPAN modules and a database of reviews. I thought that was the purpose of the "discuss your module before submitting it" part of the CPAN module procedure. Putting peer reviews (or, for that part, *any* reviews) of modules in a central place is a good idea, for sure. But who will write those reviews? And should CPAN shoulder the burden of organizing the whole process around it, and take the responsibility for (always possible) errors? Let's face it - reviewing module code is so difficult and time-consuming that most people prefer to write something new instead (I don't mean reviews like the ones we have on this site under Module Reviews - I mean real code reviews). This is a Bad Thing, agreed. But where is the incentive for people to put their energy into code reviews, when the majority of the community does not value this service?
Christian Lemburg In reply to Re: Re: Re: A Fit on NIH
by clemburg
|
|