Re: Re: PEPr - Automated Verification Process for the transition from DRAFT to PROPOSAL to CALL FOR VOTES

On 5/29/05, Vincent Lascaux <vincent.lascaux@centraliens.net> wrote: > > (2) too often there is the *legitimate* request from the PEAR Devs to > > comply with the PEAR CS (apparently for some of the proposer its to > > cumbersome to comply with them in the first instance ...) > > > > PEPr should be enabled to do the following: allow the status' change from > > "Draft" to "Proposal" and from "Proposal" to "Call for > > Votes" *only*, if > > (1) at least the following links are available: PEAR package file (.tgz), > > one or more Package source file (.phps/.htm) and Package documentation > > (API) (2) the source code presented complies with the PEAR CS. > > Obviously, there should be some code that meets the CS when you call a > package for vote. > But I don't think this is required when changing from draft to proposal. The > goal of the proposal is to retrieve some comments about the package (at > least that's what I believe...). I do think that you may want to retrieve > some comments without having coded anything, or having a code that does not > meet the CS. The developper may not want to work on a code he already has to > meet the CS if he doesn't have an idea if the package is going to be > accepted or not. > This is why the docs say you should mention on the PEAR list before you propose. That way you can get a quick check on whether it's worth your time. This is *also* what the Draft phase is for. If a proposer wants some comments before they propose then they should ask the list. -- Justin Patrin