RE: [PEAR-DEV] (PTADT) PEAR Task Announcement and Delegation Tool (Was: Task Manager Tool)

>Some of the ideas are interesting, but there some things that need to be >clarified. > >Can we assume that the task management will work for general PEAR concerns as >well as individual packages? > >What will this be different from submitting a bug for pearweb? or a patch for >the bug? Will this integrate with the current bug system or be a different view >of it? Will this enhance the bug reporting system? Well I hadn't considered the bug reporting system. Though it does have some similarities to the bug reporting system and to PEPr. I thought the key ideas behind the tool would be primarily to encourage more participation from the developer community without the requirements of getting to know PEAR internals, CVS, docbook, etc. using a simple, easy to use, easy to browse UI. This tool differs from PEPr, in only really one way that I can think of, and that's categorization. And, well, it isn't really PEPr's business to deal with documentation, and the other types of tasks. Same with the bug system. Though I could easily see either tool being altered slightly to fill the need. I'm envisoning a set-up like that of dmoz.org, as far as the categorization is conserned, certainly not that complex, but a browse by category set-up. Sometimes tasks can be bugs but sometimes they aren't. This tool focuses on tasks that aren't bugs. But could easily be both.. if someone doesn't have time to fix bugs, they could use this tool to delegate the task to someone else. One other central idea behind the tool is a repository for all the abstract ideas that this person or that person would do given that person had the time and resources. I don't think the bug system is the appropriate place for that, in that, feature requests tend to get lost in there. In this forum they'd at least be able to hang around in a more user friendly format, so that when new people come along and want to contribute to PEAR but don't know how, there is a place for immediate ideas. And as I mentioned, also a venue to deal with package adoption.. someone can easily browse what's abandoned. I say "easy" as I realize someone who knows the bug system can find all feature requests and the related on the fly. > - Documentation > - Contains tasks related to documentation, tutorials, etc. >Same as above with the added question on who will add new tasks to >this part? Developers who don't have the time to document their own packages, PEAR Q/A, the PEAR group, PEAR-DOC, etc. The idea here is to create a place where tasks can be delegated to lighten the burden from the same few people. > - PEAR > Documentation on PEAR itself > > - Developer Tutorials > - Package Documentation >Aren't these redundant w/ the item above? perhaps the indentation is not the >appropriate one if this are sub-items These are intended to be nested sub categories. > - Package Creation > Contains tasks related to new package ideas > >How will this differ from PEPr? will it enhance it/replace it/be different view >of it? This is different from PEPr, in that it would only contain more abstract ideas, not proposals. Such as I'd like to create a DB package for mail storage, I know the package would be useful but I don't have the time to write it. Or a package for importing/exporting mail from various programs. This category is like a muse for the aspiring PEAR developer. >> Features: >> - Task creation tool >> - Draft >> - Create/Open >> - Edit >> - Close >Some of the details at the beginning are not too clear to me, so the scope need >for the task creationg tools are not yet transparent to me. >> - Task assistance tool >> - Commit to task >> - Assist on task >Hmm, bug reporting system, cvs commits???? I'm not sure I understand? I intended commit in this context to mean "volunteer my help to accomplish the task". >> - Task solution tool >> - Post solution directly to the task where others may assist >> on the task (to work like a wiki) >Patches in bug system. Yes, quite similar, but the venue is different. I do see the parallels, and well, its just an idea anyway. : ) Sorry for my lack of explaination! Regards, Richard York