Automated Verification Process for the transition from DRAFT to PROPOSAL to CALL FOR VOTES
| From: | Stefano F. Rausch | Date: | Sun, 05 Jun 2005 15:56:56 +0000 |
| Subject: | Automated Verification Process for the transition from DRAFT to PROPOSAL to CALL FOR VOTES | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-37973@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Dear All!
On Mon, 30 May 2005 01:04:47 +0200, Alan Knowles <alan@akbkhome.com> wrote:I have started to submit patches to Tobias, i.e.: - Patch no. 1: Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that you can't edit a "Proposal" and on the same time change the status to "Called for Votes", whithout loosing the changelog comment; the changes to the description section are taken over though. IHMO, this restriction should be removed and the first patch does it. - Patch no. 2: If the "Draft"/"Proposal" is not a RFC, then a check that at least the following three link types have been _defined_ should be performed: PEAR package file (.tgz), Package source file (.phps/.htm) and Package documentation, when changing the status to "Proposal" or "Called for Votes". Even though, for the time being, no further checking (do the links really point to said link types?) is done, this enhancement is good to have. Imagine a proposer trying to bluff the rest of the community only for the changing of the status, but not complying with the requirements ... bad story for him/her. So would a final check of the availability of the required link types still be necessary?I hope that also meant your volunteering to make the changes.....
On Mon, 30 May 2005 16:43:08 +0200, Martin Jansen <mj@php.net> wrote:This has been take care of with the a.m. patch no. 2 ;) Further ones will be posted to Tobias according to our discussion. -- StefanoOn Sun May 29, 2005 at 09:0146PM +0200, Stefano F. Rausch wrote:While this sounds sane, we should keep in mind that sometimes proposals are handled in PEPr that do not deal with code, but with guidelines for PEAR. (E.g. Daniel's recent RfC for the header comment block format.) Thus we need to make sure that there is a way to circumvent the above mentioned requirements for such proposals.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.