Re: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] System_SharedMemory-0.0.4 (beta) Released.

Hi Bertrand, I'm fully with you that the package did deserve more than +5 votes. Sometimes time constraints do not allow to comment on/vote for a new proposal ... :( ... appologies for that. However, having said this, I would expect that at least the first official release does fully comply with the PCS! Let's see it from a marketing point of view. The PEAR community wants to deliver first quality code and that includes, as I understand it, that the guidelines are followed without restrictions too. IMHO, when one has achieved the acceptance of a proposal (congrats to Evgeny, I really mean it) then the first official release should not be pushed just to get it out. Obviously there's one exception, i.e. the documentation with DocBook ;) which can be added at a later stage. Futhermore, I find it really boring that most of the new proposals have comments like "please be so kind to conform with the PCS" ... do we have guidelines to follow or not? Do we want to achieve consistency within the PEAR project or not? Otherwise we could just postpone the whole PCS topic 'til the first official package has been released and only then start insisting on it - i.e. it would not matter how the proposal is presented, for only the added value and the desing of the package would be of importance. What are the feeling of PEAR QA in this respect? All the best -- Stefano On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:18:14 +0200, bertrand Gugger <bertrand@toggg.com> wrote:

Bonjour, Stefano F. Rausch wrote:

If you don't mind my 2 cents too - after a cursory review: you don't comply with the PCS [1], i.e. don't use tabs to indent, instead use 4 spaces [2], change the EOL to LF and add a trailing LF after the closing PHP tag [3], adhere to the header comment block standard [4] ... see e.g. System/SharedMemory.php Sorry to say, but I'm not happy that this code has been released without further clean up!

You did not comment during the proposal phase , not sure you may be "unhappy" now. I think Evgeny made really great efforts to improve his package. Those CS problems are minor beginner's (in PEAR) faults. I'm confident that will be quick cleaned. I'm more concentrated on the usability/added value ... and here, that package should have get much more as +5 votes ! à+