Re: Re: Publicly listed channels (was [PEAR-DEV] Considering package proposal:

I guess it's a double edge sword, + channels = promote other locations with quality php code - channels = promote other locations with crap php code. Do we promote phpNuke, phpBB channels.. ? Do we promote myFirstPhpProject type channels ? How do we decide if a channel is good, bad? Does the channel page end up looking like hotscripts/phpclasses? I think the idea about pointing to a single (or maybe later two or three) external site(s): phpcodechannels.net or something? which can decide it's own listing rules seems more sensible. PEAR is more about a repository of quality code, which is peer reviewed, and maintained.. - not really the place to do a hotscripts type search for projects... Regards Alan On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 17:55 +0200, Lukas Smith wrote: > Greg Beaver wrote: > > Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > > >> It *would* be nice to see an area on PEAR for listing alternate > >> channels and > >> PEAR-based applications/frameworks/what-have-you, particularly if code > >> linked > >> there were reviewed (somewhat) by PEAR developers. > > > One of the political tasks that PEAR needs to work out as PEAR 1.4.0 > > reaches maturity is how channels will be added to the official channel > > the above does not necessary imply he has a channel setup, nor should it > require that someone has a channel setup. > > > list. I suspect that it would be best if there was a simple form at > > pear.php.net. Something along these lines: > > I would say we should require a PEAR account for this and add > pear.channel Karma or something like that. An actual channel could then > be maintained in much the same way as a package. It needs a unique name, > can have multiple people associated with it etc. > > > Then, a small panel of pear devs could evaluate initial submissions, > > weeding out the spam entries we are bound to receive. If a channel is a > > legitimate PEAR channel, it would simply be added to the list of > > channels users get when they run the "update-channels" command. > > I would say have it run through pepr ... > We just have to define what the criterias are for acceptance (+5 ..?) > > > Requirements for listing a channel at pear.php.net need to be worked > > out. I would recommend: > > > > - channel has a public browsable frontend like pear.php.net > > - channel has full support for the PEAR installer version 1.4.0 > > - channel has been around for at least 6 months and has at least 1 > > package with releases > > I think the last one is a bit misleading. What does 6 months tell us? > Not much imho. But sure a set of guidelines we can publish, but leave > the actual decision to the pear community. > > > mature channels should be listed at pear.php.net. Obviously, some > > leeway needs to be there for sites that have established backgrounds > > like horde and php-tools.net. Clearly, these sites have got stuff > > worked out, and might not need the 6 month window to prove their > > maturity :). > > Something like that makes sense. > > > The single most important thing we as PEAR folks can do is to be > > *non-restrictive* about channels. The only requirement for listing a > > channel must be that it works and is not distributing malicious code. > > Let the users decide whether a channel is worth investigating. Most > > will probably never change their default_channel to anything other > > pear.php.net/pecl.php.net, and that is just fine. The installer is > > designed so that you won't be distracted by other channels unless you > > want to be [1]. > > +1 > > Let me elaborate quickly. Anything we put into the installer is on some > level endorsed by us. So we should take care about what channels we > accept. At the same time we should base this decision not so much on the > technical quality, but more on if we except this channel to stick > around, if we trust the owners to not publish malicous code etc. We > obviously cant gurantee that the owner will not publish malicous code. > > At the same time the scope of the installer is much broader for the php > project at large. So I can see that pecl people might feel that they > should have a say here too. We might want to bring this topic up on the > pear-core list in a separate thread. > > regards, > Lukas >