Re: Re: Publicly listed channels

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:47:47 +0200 bmansion@mamasam.com (Bertrand Mansion) wrote: > Tomas V.V.Cox wrote: > > >Lukas Smith wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > >I'd let that channels-listing site to a third party guys. We > >can't confuse people pointing them to channels out of PEAR/PECL > >where we have no control and no QA. Btw, it shouldn't be our > >task to review, calibrate or recommend code developed out of > >here and even worse to track it along the time. I partially agree. We cannot apply our rules (QA, CS, etc.) on any single project outside pear. However, a visible notice telling that we do not provide any kind of support, QA, RM for the extern channels should solve this problem (even if nobody will read it ;). --Pierre