Re: PEPr Automated Verification Process - first enhancements
| From: | Alan Knowles | Date: | Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:01:55 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PEPr Automated Verification Process - first enhancements | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-38165@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 18:14 +0200, Stefano F. Rausch wrote:
> 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:
> +
> + case 'pkg_source':
> + return preg_match('"^http\://.+\.(phps|htm(l)?)$"', $url)?
> true: false;
or .txt I guess... - if you dont run .phps on your server, uploading a
php file as a .txt, at least get's it rendered...
it also rules out people doing stuff like
'http://myapplication/render?name=somefile/xyz.php'
Nothing like a simple problem becoming more complex, the more you look
at it..
> (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.
I'd rather you have a series of blank options
[---type---V] [url]
[---type---V] [url]
[---type---V] [url]
[---type---V] [url]
+ a message say what is required..
then check that all the required types have been added... (eg. like
source url / example url etc...)
>
> (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 always wonder if we should allow comments on draft proposals - it
would save alot of time for the proposers trying to come up with a
proposal that may never be accepted...
Regards
Alan
> 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
>
--
Alan Knowles <alan@akbkhome.com>