PEPr Automated Verification Process - first enhancements

Dear PEAR-Devs, Tobias and I would like to inform you that some of the enhancements regarding the PEPr process have been committed to cvs. What follows is a detailed description of the changes: (1) MATCH OF LINK TYPE AND URL If links are provided, the following rules apply (i) without any distinction whether the proposal is a RFC or a non-RFC (ii) the status is not "Draft" (iii) there's a status change from "Draft" to "Proposed"/"Proposed" to "Called for Votes":

+        switch ($type) {
+            case 'pkg_file':
+                return preg_match('"^http\://.+\.tgz$"', $url)? true: false;
+                break;

+

+            case 'pkg_source':
+                return preg_match('"^http\://.+\.(phps|htm(l)?)$"', $url)? true: false;
+                break;

+

+            case 'pkg_example':
+                return preg_match('"^http\://.+\.php$"', $url)? true: false;
+                break;

+

+            case 'pkg_example_source':
+                return preg_match('"^http\://.+\.(phps|htm(l)?)$"', $url)? true: false;
+                break;

+

+            case 'pkg_doc':
+                return preg_match('"^http\://.+$"', $url)? true: false;
+                break;
+        }

(2) RFC PROPOSAL In RFC proposals the providing of links is optional. Hence, the link fields in the links section are not flagged with a red asterisk - as in the old version - regardless of the current status. (3) NON-RFC PROPOSALS In non-RFC proposals the providing of 2 links is mandatory - the first 2 link fields are flagged with a red asterisk, when the following events take place: - change of status (see (1)) - edit-modus in the "Proposed" phase Furthermore, on top of (1), the first link must be of type "PEAR package file (.tgz)" and the second one can be of any available type. The reasoning behind this approach is, that at least source code must be made available and hopefully a further valuable link of any type is made available for the reviewers. (4) HANDLING OF CHANGELOG COMMENTS Now changelog comments are being accounted for, when a change of status from "Proposed" to "Called for Votes" is being initiated simultaneously, i.e. any remarks will be recorded and displayed in the last phase of a proposal and not be lost as in the old version. -- Stefano