good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
Perldocs and peer reviewsby g0n (Priest)
|on Jan 31, 2005 at 12:24 UTC||Need Help??|
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
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
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?
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: