Re: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Net_DNSBL-1.0.0 (stable)
| From: | Greg Beaver | Date: | Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:37:42 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Net_DNSBL-1.0.0 (stable) | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-34623@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
First of all, sorry for the inconvenience, Sebastian, these rules are around to prevent serious problems that happened all the time before they went into place. For instance:
"PEAR is undocumented!"
"This package is stable, but it is missing files!"
"This package is stable, but I get a fatal error in the first attempt to use it!"
All of these were common back when the first release was allowed to be stable. Since the chance of a problem with the first release is high (you *do* have to change something to make it a PEAR package, unless you designed it that way from the beginning), it's a simple safeguard, not just for users, but for the "stable" label. We don't want people to start complaining
"I can't depend on PEAR because they mark crap code stable"
IMPORTANT: I'm *not* saying Net_DSNBL is crap code!!! I actually find it to be fine code, this is a hypothetical.
Helgi Þormar wrote:
Even though this class (or it's only the method ?) has been used in some big blog application, it's all the same really, never been a release in PEAR so needs some testing obviously from the people that use PEAR, or well you get my drift, it's much better to release a beta, stick around it for few weeks, see if any bugs creep in (look also at the download statistics) and then you can decide if you want to go stable.Always a good idea. Call it version 1.0.0RC1, state beta. Then in a few weeks, when there's been a couple hundred or a thousand downloads, if there are no bugs, release it as 1.0.0, stable, unchanged. Get docs on pearweb first though. You can always create them and then upload a link to them to pear-doc@lists.php.net until you get doc karma.
Also I _think_ it's now in some documents that a stable package has to have end user docs, but I'm not sure.yes it does. You can't define BC without docs.
Also think the tests folder shouldn't have capital T (don't know if it matters for the installer, maybe Greg can answer :P If it doesn't matter then ignore this part :-))No it is tests/ in the docs (pear-group archives) Greg