I propose eliminating the Long Module List. I'm talking about
I welcome your thoughts. How can we capture the good part of the module
list (the human filtering), and remove the obsoleted infrastructure?
xoxo,
doesn't mean it isn't used or unimportant. The main menu on search is automatically generated from that list and it used to be as close to a list of publicly deemed worthy modules as one could get. People don't need to download the list that frequently anymore, they just use the index on search.
And pair.com is the mirror that serves www.cpan.org.
I also understand that "it used to be as close to a list of publicly deemed worthy modules as one could get", but that's no longer the case. Any ol' module gets on there, and plenty of good ones are ignored.
I think it's safe to say that any one of Simon Cozens' modules would be "publicly deemed worthy", but there are only two of his 100+ on there. Ingy, 5. Schwern, 11. Autrijus, 9.
It's just not accurate any more.
Not accurate because, in your opinion, there are too few of your friends modules? There are too many modules on CPAN and too little space in something like that list. It is intentionally narrow and small.
It's accurate, but perhaps it's not as maintained as it once was since the modules list is impossible to manage and we're still waiting for an rt queue to help manage those.
Aren't there bigger burning issues like boxers or briefs out there somewhere?
Nobody's trying to take anything away from you, or any of the rest of the module list maintainers. I won't deny that there was great value in the past. That time was years ago, however. Let's start fresh with something new.
Yes, that's what people said with Perl6, fresh and new...we can see how well that has worked out so far.
CPAN is the one remaining thing that keeps a lot of people around perl and changes to it will be neither dramatic nor quick. Make a new list or propose something with an understanding of how things work, but there are better crusades to be had around these parts.
I think many just don't submit modules anymore because they know the list is not being updated.
I'm sure it could be repaired, but I don't think it's worth the effort. As it is it's worse than useless and should be discarded as soon as possible.
-sam
PS: And don't get me started about DSLIP codes! I agree with this part...
should be discarded as soon as possible
...but I totally disagree with this one! I think if we had an updated module list it would be to the benefit of our community! I strongly believe that a long module list of that kind is something good for the community, as long as it is updated.
Many of you may say you don't need it, as you use search.cpan.org instead... I don't use it either (in part because the list is outdated), but I know such a list would be a good thing to have.
You can use search.cpan.org to search for specific modules, but others can use the long list to look at all those modules and get new ideas from them.
It's not kind of a "let's see if I have this" list, it's more kind of a "let's see what I have" list.
That doesn't preclude us from throwing away the old and broken. If we have something old and broken that could be useful, why throw it away when we can rebuild it now? I too am in favour of getting rid of it. I have never used it, and I've never used the search.cpan.org directory either. In fact, as a beginner, years ago, the www.cpan.org interface confused and frustrated me. It was so hard to find anything! Manually browsing the site has been painfully difficult and inefficient for a long time. The module list does little to improve that. Nowadays, my only contact with CPAN is via search.cpan.org's query form and via CPAN.pm.
The one bit of value that I see in this process is where Graham looks
at submissions that people have sent in and, if something seems like
it's duplicate effort, tries to redirect the author to reduce the
duplication. (
Way back when, it was cool to have a single readable source of
information. With search.cpan.org, it's just not necessary any more.
The list gives two aims:
Looking at pair.com's mirror logs, I see that since Jan 2003, downloads of
00mod* have averaged fewer than five per month. Per month, not per day.
Pair is not a lightly-used mirror, either. They served up 615K distros
for July 2004. Five out of 615,000 is close enough to zero for me.
It doesn't mean anything to have a module on that list. It's certainly
not a stamp of quality. I don't mean to ignite the debate over whether
there should be some "Perl Approved CPAN module" apparatus should exist;
only that inclusion on the Module List is not it.
There's significant amount of human time and machine resources that go
into maintaining the Long Module List. For that matter, it's a waste
of developer time proposing inclusion on a list that nobody looks at.
Browsing search.cpan.org gives the user the impression that he or she
is browsing all modules on the CPAN. This is not the case. The 26
categories don't make sense any more, anyway.
Andy
just because it's not popular
hfb on 2004-08-18T22:19:30
Re:just because it's not popular
petdance on 2004-08-18T23:10:47
I understand that the main menu is automatically generated from the list. See bullet point "search.cpan.org browsing is misleading".
Re:just because it's not popular
brian_d_foy on 2004-08-18T23:29:11
Not any module gets on the list. I don't think we approve even half of the submissions.
I'm not sure any of Simon's modules qualify as anything. Wasn't his hundredth module only POD just so he could say that he had a hundred modules?
I use the Module List quite a bit to help people name their modules or work with other people with similar modules. It does not some maintenance though.
Re:just because it's not popular
petdance on 2004-08-19T01:33:00
Sure, and there are a couple of Bundle:: modules in there as well. That doesn't diminish the quality of the other 90+ that are worth putting out there. The point is that it's far from complete, or accurate. If we want to have a way to say "These are good, kwalitee modules", then let's do that. The Module List is no longer the way to do that.
Re:just because it's not popular
hfb on 2004-08-19T07:46:16
Re:just because it's not popular
petdance on 2004-08-19T13:08:40
Not my friends, just people who have written good, solid modules. It's not like Simon and I are buddies, but he's still written good stuff. It's not that those modules are excluded, but rather that people aren't bothering to submit to it.
Re:just because it's not popular
hfb on 2004-08-19T14:08:13
Re:just because it's not popular
cog on 2004-08-19T15:23:41
people aren't bothering to submit to it
Re:just because it's not popular
offerk on 2004-08-25T05:48:31
Nitpicking... 6 hits in a month mean it's unused. Trying to call it "un-popular" or hinting that it is used, even though only 6 people a month use it, doesn't change this.
As for being "important" - if it's misleading (e.g. people think it represents the entire module list) or drains resources away from more important endevours, than yes, I would call it "unimportant".
It's past time somebody spoke out about this issue. I totaly agree- this list should be taken out to pasture.
Yes!
samtregar on 2004-08-19T00:41:03
I agree, 100%. I can't remember the last time I used the module list, but I find myself having to warn people away from it on a regular basis. I pity the novice that looks for a module there and concludes that CPAN can't help him when he inevitably comes up empty!
Re:Yes!
cog on 2004-08-19T10:34:09
As it is it's worse than useless
Re:Yes!
rjbs on 2004-08-19T14:58:29
No, this is why it's worse than useless.
Not only does it do no good, but it does harm. One of the ways it does harm is by making us think that we have something reasonable in place, so we can "fix this later." Let's get rid of this system, which is not reasonable.
If it then becomes apparent that we need a new system, we will feel more compelled to produce it. I imagine, though, that this need will
Re:Yes!
cog on 2004-08-19T15:20:34
I'm not saying "let's wait and fix this later"... I'm saying "let's fix this now!"
Re:Yes!
petdance on 2004-08-19T14:59:23
I think if we had an updated module list it would be to the benefit of our community!
Re:Yes!
cog on 2004-08-19T15:22:05
No, it doesn't, but see my answer to rjbs above.
the modlist
TorgoX on 2004-08-19T08:59:26
I never quite understood what problem the modlist was meant to solve, much less whether it was solving it or not.
Seconded
Aristotle on 2004-08-19T13:51:59
Similiar efforts?
offerk on 2004-08-25T06:14:20
I welcome your thoughts. How can we capture the good part of the module list (the human filtering), and remove the obsoleted infrastructure?
CPAN is pretty special, but it isn't unique. How do other sites solve this?
Looking at CTAN (on which CPAN was originally based), I see they allow browsing of the entire site contents, as well as search interfaces through several interfaces, including Google. So here's suggestion number 1:
* Add a Google search!
What else? I'm not sure. Maybe something like DMOZ, but specific to CPAN. Personally, I don't buy the "one man decides on which module is good and which isn't" system. If it's properly tested and has all the required files (README, MANIFEST, etc.), it should be listed. After all, one man's dross is another's gold...
So suggestion number 2 is:
* Use the "open directory" method, where everyone who wants to becomes an editor.
I'm sure there are other sites out there who could serve as good examples. Perhaps a Wiki based site, with module specific pages?
I don't know what would work- it depends to large extent on how the community would get involved. I do however agree that the current interface needs to change, just as I agree that it would be smart not to break anything before making sure we have a replacement ready to take its place...
