Re: PEPr Automated Verification Process - first enhancements

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 04:01:55 +0200, Alan Knowles <alan@akbkhome.com> wrote:

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'

Point taken! Are there any other extensions to be considered too? Otherwise I would suggest to freeze the possible file types to:

    preg_match('"^http\://.+\.(php(s)?|htm(l)?|txt)$", $url)? true: false;

There's still the documentation type that can be used - without any restrictions.

(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...)

If you are thinking of: * [ <blank> ] [url] must be of type PEAR package file * [ <blank> ] [url] free to choose: make sure that if you only provide this additional link,

                    this is more than added value

[ <blank> ] [url] that makes sense to me too. Would the messages be allright? Any further comments on this? If there's general consensus regarding the two issues/topics raised, I'll send the patches to Tobias to be committed into cvs in due time. -- Stefano