Re: PFC (was: On PEAR quality issues and natural selection)
| From: | Lukas Smith | Date: | Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:42:42 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PFC (was: On PEAR quality issues and natural selection) | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-27299@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Greg Beaver wrote:
Alexey Borzov wrote:Hmm I remember this being part of the RFC actually. Hmm but after a quick look I didnt find it either. I know there were two versions of this RFC. Maybe we need this RFC to be rewritten and reproposed to get everything cleared up and uptodate. regards, Lukas Smith smith@backendmedia.com _______________________________ BackendMedia www.backendmedia.com berlin@backendmedia.com Linn Zwoch Smith GbR Pariser Str. 44 D-10707 Berlin Tel +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax +49 30 83 22 50 07BTW, I found the original PFC proposal [1] and it does not deal with having documentation and tests *at all*. It just outlines the code peer-review process after which the package can be declared PFC. I don't remember anyone initiating this process, either. [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=104612175324131&w=2I think leaving out docs and unit tests is an oversight. I am strictly opposed to anything being declared a PFC without a full test suite and good docs. Reasoning is obvious: test suites help catch any BC breaks as well as accidental introduction of new bugs when fixing old ones. Documentation defines API.