Re: Re: About the package proposal interface

On Sunday 17 August 2003 19:43, Martin Jansen wrote: > So you think that the packages proposed in > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=105986336428703&w=2—C$(? > u%$YP|m} should be > part of PEAR? In the post to which you replied, I stated: "something ... to do with a protcol (sic), file type or technology that [users] are unsure of how to approach" The proposed packages in your example are obviously unsuitable because they are extremely simple operations. I'm not writing about simple operations. I'm writing about reasonably complex or time-saving procedures that a user might have have difficulty in carrying out themselves, or an interface to a popular or published protocol, file type or operation. > > Quality? > > Administration? Surely with a rock solid QA > > Having a QA initiative is a more than tricky task. (The best example is > the PHP QA team.) Thus we shouldn't rely too much on it. I don't dispute that it is a difficult thing to do, and beleive the primary assurance of quality must come from the package maintainer, simply by following the appropriate guidelines. > Join pear-qa@lists.php.net and announce your intention there. I guess > the QA folks are happy about every help they can get. Note: said list does not appear on the following page: http://www.php.net/mailing-lists.php so, I've just mailed pear-qa-subscribe@lists.php.net instead. Will announce my intentions. :) Regards, David