Re: On PEAR quality issues and natural selection
| From: | Greg Beaver | Date: | Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:23:55 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: On PEAR quality issues and natural selection | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-27283@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Lukas Smith wrote:
Greg Beaver wrote:OK, I would like to request that PEAR developers review PEAR_PackageFileManager and determine its worthiness as a PFC. It has full unit tests, docs, and has been stable for quite some time with no open bugs. It only depends on the PEAR package, which I guess by nature must be PFC. This of course raises "what is a PFC" again - full unit tests - full documentation - stable - many downloads (how many is many?) - peer-reviewed - no open coding bugs for more than a certain amount of time (how long?) - willingness to let QA step in immediately with both cvs commits and package drops/releases - PEAR CS - no stupid stuff (sudden BC breaks, stable too early, etc.) GregLukas Smith wrote:but nobody has announced that his package meets the pfc criterias.Ah this is the PFC idea. Unfortunately noone has made the effort to turn his package into a PFC.What do you mean? I think many packages are working in that direction, providing both docs and regression tests is what we're talking about, right?