CPANdeps now links to the right bug-tracker
CPANdeps has for ages had links to each distribution's bug tracker. Trouble is, it always just linked to rt.cpan. Lots of people don't use that any more, preferring to, for example, use the one that github creates for each repository hosted there. META.yml (and META.json) have links to those.
Ben Bullock provided a patch to extract the info from the META files, and I applied it a few moments ago. There are quite a few different ways it can be specified, and in some places META.yml and META.json files have different data structures, so we may have missed a few. Please submit a bug report if you find any module whose bug tracker I'm not correctly linking to.
I'm in yur test resultz analyzn yr failz
Finally :) Thanks for this. Although I am fine with RT, some people are really bugged (NPI) by it.
Nowadays, I think what bugs people is not rt itself, but that there is no way to opt out of it. And even if you set the bugtracker in the module meta file, the rt.cpan.org bugtracker is still created for the module, and some people still post bug reports to RT.cpan.org. I recently found a bug report on RT which was posted there despite the module bugtracker being pointed to the github issues page. Also, another problem is that modules which are removed from cpan still stay on rt.cpan.org forever. Similarly with annotated cpan or the cpan forums, or cpanratings, I am tending to agree with Marc Lehmann that these things should really be "opt in" rather than "opt out" or "cannot opt out". The feeling is a kind of frustration: I already made the module, wrote the tests, wrote documentation, wrote manifest, released to cpan, blah, blah, blah, and now, having done all that, I also have to participate in this rt and forum and annotation and ratings? Module authors should be given an "off switch".
Personally I've just embraced rt.cpan.org as bugtracker for my modules. It may not be the greatest bug tracker, but it's adequate, and it seemed the path of least resistance. I can't avoid having an rt.cpan.org bugtracker, and don't want two bugtrackers, so I might as well use rt.cpan.org.
From an end-user point of view, it's handy to have a single place to report all bugs. I don't need to sign up for a new account (and go through the verification e-mail palaver!) at a different website for each module I want to report a bug against. And my rt.cpan.org homepage can list not only the bugs reported against my modules, but the bugs I've reported against other peoples' modules, all in one place, sorted by "last update" date, so I can see which ones have been resolved lately. Which is nice.
In an ideal world every module author could use whatever bug-tracker they like, and they'd all support a common API. This would allow me, as a module author to manage bugs the way I like, in my preferred tracker; and as a bug reporter it would allow me to report and watch all bugs through a single central interface which communicated with different bug trackers over the common API as required.
Some work has been done in the Semantic Web world to do with modelling bug data in a decentralised way, but any solution would really require "buy in" from the big players (github, bitbucket, sourceforge, bugzilla, etc).
Toby, thats about the best case I've heard for using RT. If only it could get better code formatting; I could give up smart tagging, but "issues" has such better formatting.
If you use Github for your code then it's *really* convenient to also use Github for your bug reports, especially when those reports come with a "pull request" so you can merge a patch with just one click.
I also accept bug reports in RT, but I don't *use* RT: instead I have some Magic that notices when I upload a new distribution to the CPAN and automatically subscribes me to the RT RSS feed. There's a brief description here.
yay! wordpress (or whatever the hell this site uses) ate my link! google for "david cantrell cpan r2e".
This site uses Movable Type (MT), http://www.movabletype.org/
Think of it this way: since you decide to release something (in this case, a CPAN distribution) to the public, either one way or another the public will comment on it. CPAN just provides the tools. Authors are always allowed to ignore all comments, ratings, bug reports.
BTW, I've never participated in forums.