Re: Requiring SCM

On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 07:42 -0500, Richard York wrote: > Helgi Þormar wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > Haven't you all been in the situation that you want to view the source > > of X package but can't because the code is no where online except for > > that .tgz that pearweb provides ? > > Isn't that very frustrating ? IMHO it is very frustrating since we offer > > free hosting of the source in the php.net CVS repo. > > > > Now what I want to propose is that we start requiring people to have the > > code online someplace in a SCM repo, be it SVN/CVS (well we might want > > to limit to those 2 ?) both so we can checkout the source when ever we > > want and also view online via browser. > > -1. I don't personally use a SVN/CVS system. Nor do I want to at this > point. It's not that I don't think it's a good idea to do so, but rather > for me it's inconvienient. I think we should just offer a mechanism to > view the source code a la PhpDocumentor, or provide a method to link to > phps files. Then we can't follow the development which is bad, many mistakes are often spotted through working with development version + looking at cvs emails or such Plus giving us change to only view the code for each release is very bad IMHO, because that's not really open source :-) > > There is no excuse not maintaining the source in SCM that's accessible > > to everyone, especially since we have our very own CVS repo at > > cvs.php.net which all PEAR developers can get access to if they like. > > I don't understand the SCM/CVS system and don't feel like figuring it > out. I'm lazy, I realize! :-) Not really, just busy ;-). There is nothing difficult with using a GUI application, I really think that Word is more complex then the CVS clients out there. > > For real, there is NO excuse for not having the code in SCM online, even > > tho it's time consuming to maintain such thing but I think we'll get > > greater quality on our packages and easier way to QA all packages (be it > > manually or via some automate ways). > > I mean I've gotten the response from certain PEAR devs (I'll name no > > names) that they won't place the code for their package in a online repo > > simply because there are no rules in PEAR that requires them to do so > > which in turns hinders me to effectively help with the package/bug > > fix/do QA on them. > > It is too time consuming. I can't speak for others, but I currently > maintain all of my docs, etc, off-site, so far it's worked quite well. > > This last point may be moot and simply a show of my naivety of the > process, but I also don't want others touching my code. I don't want any > patches applied that I haven't personally investigated thoroughly. A > little pedantic, but that's just me. > > At any rate, I like the idea of being able to see the source code, just > give us more than one way of doing it! :-) No one will commit to ya source with out permission, that's how PEAR work, if people do that they get a warning, if they repeatedly violate that rule they will lose their karma or at least get a fine grained karma so they can't touch your package, so you don't have to worry about that. - Helgi