CPAN Pull Request Challenge 2017

I just received a mail from Neil Bowers asking if I would consider having my CPAN distributions be a part of the 2017 CPAN Pull Request Challenge.

My undelayed mental response: Well of course…

I participated in the 2016 Hacktoberfest, I did not contribute much, but I participated and I would have loved to contribute more. These sort of “events” are good, IMHO they bring out the best in open source and they demonstrate the essence of the open source community.

In addition they help tie a community together, so when you are like me; a maintainer of CPAN distributions with very little time, every patch and every PR is most welcome.

A CPAN Pull Request Challenge gives you exactly that.

The CPAN Pull Request Challenge 2017 is soon to kick off, which mean YOU have a chance to benefit from this incredible initiative.

If you have received a mail from Neil respond and be take into consideration for possible PR coming your way or you can tag your issues on Github with the label:


In order to add the label you have to do the following (This can possibly also be accomplished via the Github API, but that is beyond this blog post):

1. Go to you Github repository issues page
2. Click “Labels”
3. Click “New label”
4. Add the label “cpan-prc-2017”

This mean that the label will be present for both issues and PRs.

Please note that labelling issues will not make them go away automagically, but it will be easier for participants to find issues suitable for the challenge, and also lets participants know that you’re open to a PR for that issue. Since they can be easily identified using a primitive search:

Ask not what you can do for the CPAN Pull Request Challenge 2017, but what CPAN-PRC-2017 can do for you.

This blog post has primarily been on getting help with your distributions and issues from the challenge – there is of course also the option of participating as a contributor of PRs.

Please read more about CPAN Pull Request Challenge at:

Have fun – looking forward to your PRs,


CPAN Pull Request Challenge 2017

Github Pages

I have for long wanted to do something with Github Pages. I have seen cool projects having great websites for promotion and acting as landing pages and frontpages to Github repositories and the integration just seems to come so easy, but I could not really find the time to have a crack at it.

Then I read a Github blog post stating “Publishing with GitHub Pages, now as easy as 1, 2, 3”, so I think, well know it must be about time.

I have had a plan to do some promotion of the repository and Perl distribution Workflow. But I wanted to do some experimenting first, to get a feel for the process, tweaks and tricks and the result.

I started with my personal Github page, then that and my Today I Learned repository. Utilizing the available themes was quite easy, but that would mean that your site/page at some point look like everybody else’s and the point of doing promotion is to stand out.

I have several Perl distributions on Github, I would for them to have some sort of resemblance so they would be easily identifiable as homepages for Perl distributions. MetaCPAN can utilize a link to a homepage using CPAN Metadata (See the specification: CPAN::Meta::Spec, resources).


Getting this set using Dist::Zilla was described in my latest blog post.

Well I decided for the Cayman theme and I decided to go for some basic customisation.

Github Pages uses Jekyll and adding a theme is quite easy doing it via the Github repository settings.


I am a complete n00b at this Jekyll stuff and I am primarily programming and not doing layout using CSS and HTML – I am one of those programmers who love Bootstrap. But I successfully got Jekyll running locally.

Anyway I forked Cayman repository and got it working so I could do changes, tweaks and customization.

When I finally got the “Cayman” theme to look like what I wanted, I ported my changes to me repository using the Cayman theme following this piece of documentation.

The actual porting is quite simple, but I had to translate from some Sass directives to pure CSS. This was done using a combination of inspecting elements using the browser and copy-pasting CSS directive from my fork of the Cayman theme.

Lifted from the documentation referenced above:


My final result got to look as follows:


@import "{{ site.theme }}";

.page-header {
  color: #fff;
  text-align: center;
  background-color: #fff;
  background-image: linear-gradient(to bottom, #1e6bb8, #fff);

.main-content {
    h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
        margin-top: 2rem;
        margin-bottom: 1rem;
        font-weight: normal;
        color: #222;

And you can see the result here:

Apart from getting to learn a bit about Jekyll, Sass, I learned a bit about CSS3 gradients. I know my customizations are in the low end, but as I stated I would love to do something, which could communicated that it was a Perl 5 distribution, but the Perl 5 brand is somewhat vague – so the next step is to spark some creativity to take this new customizations to a new level and if it is going to be widely used for my distributions, perhaps be folded into some sort of standardised theme, which can be easily applied to several repositories.

If you want to help me create a Perl Jekyll Github Page Theme – ideas and suggestions are most welcome…


Github Pages

Maintenance releases of Test::Timer

Over the last week or so I have released several maintenance releases of Test::Timer

It all started with finally getting around to evaluating a PR from p-alik. I decided to use the new review feature, this was strictly necessary, but it was fun to try it out.

Then based on a blog post from Github on their pages solution I set up a few an experimental Github Pages solutions and chose Test::Timer to be my first Perl distribution to get a Github homepage.

0.16 2016-12-29 Maintenance release, update not required

- Elimination of warnings in test suite, PR from p-alik

I am still in the proces of refining the theme, so it is not the standard, I might get back to this in a later blog post.

Anyway I wanted to communicate the new homepage to MetaCPAN, after consulting the #distzilla channel on IRC I got some good advice and exchanged Dist::Zilla::Plugin::GitHub::Meta for Dist::Zilla::Plugin::GithubMeta, this was but crazy, but quite easy. The two plugins for Dist::Zilla however resemble each other quite a lot, so a consolidation of the two would have been nice.

0.17 2016-12-30 Maintenance release, update not required

- Exchanged use of Test::Exception for Test::Fatal

- Exchanged use of: Dist::Zilla::Plugin::GitHub::Meta for 
 Dist::Zilla::Plugin::GithubMeta to specify a proper homepage attribute

But apparently the two distributions was not completely compatible, so the bug reporting facility fell back to the de facto standard So after receiving some more excellent advice on IRC, a release with Github issues reenabled could make it to CPAN – and everything seem to be indexed and working correctly on MetaCPAN now.

0.18 2016-12-30 Maintenance release, update not required

- Reenabled Github issues over RT, the Dist::Zilla plugins not completely 

So my dist.ini ended up looking as follows:

homepage =
issues = 1

Anyway all the maintenance is completed now, I still want to get my head around tweaking the Github Pages theme and Jekyll.

At the same time I plan to get the TODO list for Test::Timer migrated to Github issues and then find the time to do an actual feature release – the tool-chain is working, so that is not stopping me.

Happy new year,


Maintenance releases of Test::Timer

Public Specifications FTW

Please note that this post is by no means endorsed by my employer, it is a personal reflection on a strategic move I have participated in, in my line of work as a professional software developer.

The above paragraph, which I felt I a need to write as a part of this blog post, is very aligned with the actual post topic in itself, please read on.

The place where I work have for a long time published specifications on some of the offered services. Either this was done using our CMS or using PDF artefacts from a Wordprocessor.

Both processes where tedious and held several issues:

  • Content in CMS
    1. Hard to edit longer documents with figures and cross references
    2. Version control was not obvious
    3. Drafts compared to published documents was not used
  • Wordprocesser artefacts
    1. Version control practically non-existing or external
    2. Document control based on files shares, folders and naming conventions
    3. Manual publication proces

There was probably several other issues I have happily forgotten, like PDF meta-data removal etc.

After having done a lot of open source work in Markdown and on Github and in conjunction with releases of some open source demo clients for our services, I proposed that we published the accompanying public specifications on Github.

This proved to be a very clever move.

It did require some consideration on our side and it was quite a new move to us. Yes we had published specifications for public availability for long a time, but putting these in a public repository was still a new move for us. But the concerns hastily evaporated and the proces became natural and incredibly productive compared to the old processes.

At the time of writing we have 6 open sourced specifications and 3 clients accompanying these and a repository with XSD files supplementing one of the specifications.

Not all of the specifications are finished, but they are out there, so if somebody wants to see what is going on, they are most welcome. We have only received a single pull-request and that is completely okay. We do not want somebody to write our specifications, that is our job, but corrections to sample code, clarifications and of course spelling corrections are most welcome.

Here are some of the pros I have observed:

  • Using Git and Markdown
    1. Version control is built-in
    2. Markdown is quite powerful and easy to edit
    3. Syntax highlighting of code samples (bash, XML, JSON, text etc.)
    4. The flow resembles a development flow and the toolchain is somewhat the same
    5. Tagging of versions and complete history is available
    6. An engaging proces supporting pull-requests (oh well)
    7. Branching for new editions and proposals for change requests

Currently one of the specification has 4 branches, when evaluation and review is finalized, will be merged onto the master, which can be tagged as the authoritative specification – and this proces is so easy to grasp and complete since it is same proces we use for source code.

One last benefit I really enjoy, one which I think is a bit underestimated is – the contract.

When we publish a public specification, we aim at to be informative, useful, correct, exact, educational, clear and to the point.

This works quite well and since often I find that we refer to the public specifications when discussing topics related to our services and since the quality of these sometime outshine our internal specifications, I often find myself thinking that we should publish much more, much much more.

So revisiting the opening paragraf – ever so often we are afraid and publishing API’s become a side-project. Do not be afraid to publish your specifications and documentation, do not be afraid to use an existing platform and toolchain, the pros outweigh the cons and you will quickly forget all about the old way of doing things and you will find yourself more productive and in the end getting your specifications published will be easier than ever.

Whether you are publishing a website or a PDF document, the information is public, the proces is actually the most important aspects and Github and Markdown REALLY leverage this.

The discussion on how far you can go and how much you can publish is a huge topic and should perhaps be another blog post.

Public Specifications FTW


Having been a long term Perl developer I have used, read, liked, written and learned from a lot of technical documentation as the one found on CPAN. Back in 2011 Chromatic wrote a good piece entitled: “Victims of the Success of CPAN Documentation”, this piece hit the nail on the head and addresses one of my long time concerns and issues with technical documentation.

“It is not always user-friendly”

I have played around with the idea of extending my documentation boilerplate/template with a section named: “Features”. The idea of the “Features” section would simply be to add information on some basic use-cases, recommended uses and core functionality (what does it do).

Often technical documentation only lay out the bricks and building blocks, letting it be up to the user to assemble the pieces, much like Ikea furniture. Ikea furniture however does have one clear advantage over software components, it does have a clearly stated goal: “You can eat|sit|sleep|contain|relax with X”, meaning Ikea sells an idea to the end-user before the fact of assembly-process comes to mind of the customer.

Software components are not Ikea furniture, it is more like LEGO bricks. but also LEGO sells the idea of a working concept, instead of just a box of bricks – you get the bricks, but you also get the blueprint. Yes you can build constructions of your own design and yes you can combine with other LEGO sets.

My youngest son builds a lot of LEGO, yes he can follow the assembly guide, and yes he an build stuff of his own design, but in a place where he truly excels is in the remix of LEGO sets. He loves taking apart standard models or models I have built, but instead of breaking them into atoms, he breaks them down to smaller LEGO models and then he combines them to alternative models – a lot of this is retrofitting guns and cannons, but that is not important for this blog post.

So when we want somebody to use our open source software, we need to sell the concept. Yes there are plenty of ways to “sell” the software, demo videos, blog posts etc. – but users think in use-cases and with the amount of open source software available, it can be hard to decide on which solution to pick – you evaluate on a lot of different parameters (this could be a blog post by itself), and one of them is sometimes documentation.

So documentation should be considered a factor to make somebody choose your software instead of some other implementation. This means you have to describe some key parameters in order to sell the concept.

  • What does it do
  • If you use it like this, it is: fast/reliable/intuitive/interactive/customisable/beautiful
  • And in addition you can: produce/calculate/render/secure/build/execute/integrate

Describe features and key concepts and core functionality as an elevator pitch and you might hook the reader.

I have grown very fond of a plugin for Sublime Text, it is a pretty basic plugin, which creates a Table of Contents on a Markdown document.

I use it all of the time.

I looked at the documentation and I got it to work, as I said it is pretty basic and the documentation was sufficient, but not impressive. I sent a pull-request for a bug fix and I sent a pull-request for some documentation spelling corrections – all was accepted.

The author is really a cool guy and I love his software product. So I thought to myself. I am not a Python programmer (my first PR was the deletion of a line), perhaps I can contribute in another way – this piece of software is really marvellous and I want everybody else to see it, try it, use it and love it – just like me.

So I wrote him and asked – What do you think about a complete rewrite of the documentation?

And he said go ahead

So today I have sent him a pull-request with a complete re-write of the documentation going from a format focused on parameters in the software to a feature centered approach.

All of the pieces where there, all the examples, all the data – I simply shuffled it around and added some prose and rephrasing to make it more human-readable.

I do not know if my theory on this holds water, but I actually like the outcome of my work and I hope this new format will be more appealing to the potential users and existing users, who read the documentation to become wiser, or get the information on how to tweak the use of the software to their needs, because the software actually had a lot to offer, but it was not immediately clear, when skimming the documentation.

I know this might not apply to all types of documentation and yet again it might.

Give it a shot.



Interesting piece on *squatting

The landscape of domain name typosquatting: techniques and countermeasures – Spaulding et al. arXiv upload 9 Mar 2016. We round up our series of posts on internet deceptions by looking at domain squatting. My “favourite” advanced technique is bitsquatting, which turns out to be a great demonstration of the inevitable failures that occur with sufficient […]

via The landscape of domain name typosquatting: techniques and countermeasures — the morning paper

Interesting piece on *squatting


I fell over something on Github called TIL (Today I Learned). I have for long pondered to migrate my notes elsewhere – currently they are all collected in a Wiki.

The idea of TIL intrigued me and now I finally got a TIL repository set up. Currently it only contains one TIL, but I plan to evaluate and migrate my earlier notes to this more open and accessible format.

Here are some of my first impressions of doing TILs hosted at Github instead of something else.

  1. The are public available
  2. They have native version control (they are actually contained in a Github repo)
  3. The can be written in Markdown
  4. They can use syntax highlighting based on the languages supported by the Github platform
  5. They follow the normal workflow used for other projects I have hosted on Github
  6. They can be forked and merged
  7. They can be commented on using issues (not directly linkable, but I guess it is somewhat trackable)
  8. Did I mention they can be written in Markdown 🙂

I have not observed any major draw-backs of this kind of write up to now, some will probably show later on, but I will give it a try and if it does not work, well I can find some other way of hosting my notes, hints, tips and tricks.

Only one TIL, but I promise more will follow.

Take care,