Re: PEAR Quality (vs. Quantity) RFC

On Tue May 13, 2003 at 12:1256PM +0200, Wolfram Kriesing wrote: > * Stage 2 (minimal req.) - CS compliance > > The package should be checked for compliing to the PEAR-CS rules. > If that is not the case the package should not even get accepted in > PEAR. IMO it's better to not allow releasing a package that does not apply to the coding standards. Putting code, that isn't CS compatible, into CVS should be allowed. > Check for the existance of unit tests. Again, to be able to > automatically check this they should be in the directory 'UnitTest'. Just a minor thing: The directory should be called "tests", which looks much better than "UnitTest" :). > A pacakge should contain user documentation, in order to get starrted > quickly. IMHO user documentation should also comply to a certain basic > structure, such as that it has to have the following chapters: > Executive summary (what's the package about, what can it do) > Getting started (simple overview with simple examples for the > most common uses) > Detailed documentation > and other chapters, the developer thinks are relevant > To be able to automatically check for the proper existance I think the > peardoc2 structure can be parsed/searched (please correct me here). Basically, this is related to http://pear.php.net/~mj/004-documentation.txt. -- - Martin Martin Jansen http://martinjansen.com/