Re: Re: Looking docs on a site. QA

Hi Tip, Before I start, I have to apologize - this is going to be a harsh email. I hope that you will not take any of my statements personally, as I am simply trying to limit vicious rumors before they get out of hand, and mean no harm. Tip wrote:

I'm not a developer and will not become one until there will be more clear statement, what QA don't have rights to take away my authorship, that it can't demand something from me until my package is not in PFC. I can't get a account until I agree to contribute my package. I can't post to proposal system until I get an account. See the problem? I can't submit my package until I'll be absolutely sure that nobody will touch my rights and will not limit my freedom if I agreed to follow the rules that are clear to me. And that rules are stated in requirements.

Calm down Beavis! :) The dictatorial regime you describe has nothing to do with PEAR. Perhaps you should read the mailing list archives more closely before getting on the soapbox. The QA group was democratically elected to help solve some problems that PEAR has experienced. That's it. "Taking away authorship" is total bullcrap, and nobody is remotely interested in this - every QA group member is also a package developer interested in their own packages primarily. Nobody wants to take over other packages from active developers! Your freedom is not limited in any way. Perhaps you misunderstood the role that QA plays in assigning developers to orphaned packages? Some packages, such as HTML_Form, were sitting with open bugs that were more than a year old, and no new releases. QA simply reassigned maintainers so that the users of HTML_Form could get a new release that fixed some of the bugs. Now is that so awful? QA also spearheaded a huge campaign of checking for php4/php5 incompatibilities in existing packages, and posted hundreds of bugs that led to PEAR's packages actually working in PHP5. This is the kind of benign activity you'll see from QA.

I also against that I must ask for permission to release a package. I don't care about QA managing PFC, but why I have to ask what to do with my sources? By submitting package I agreed, that I will provide quality code and support for what I've made. It is written in requirements. What is QA to judge who is bad developer who is good?

This is also a complete misread of the rules. Perhaps the rules are not written clearly? Let me describe what is ACTUALLY happening here: When you do your *first* stable release of a package, you have to submit it to QA. QA simply makes sure the darn thing 1) installs 2) doesn't have any obvious fatal errors 3) has all the files it claims that it does Once these parameters are verified, you're on your own. I did not, for instance, submit PEAR 1.3.3 for review prior to releasing it, and there has been no "taking away of authorship" or judging whether I am "bad or good." Thanks, Greg