Re: Major enhancements to pearweb

Lorenzo Alberton wrote: > Greg Beaver wrote: >> Note that the age of bugs is the important thing here. For instance, >> the Pager package is ranked 169 out of 170 packages with open bugs >> (bad), even though it has only 1 open bug, because the bug is more than >> 2 years old. This bug could easily be resolved (excellent solution is >> suggested by the original opener, Alan Knowles), and is an example of a >> bug that should be cleaned up as it helps to give PEAR a bad name for no >> good reason at all. By fixing and closing this bug, Pager would go from >> #169 to #1 instantly. Everyone wins. > > first: thanks for your pearweb improvements, love them. > > About the Pager bug, I have finally "fixed" it > (changing package.xml to v.2) and published a new release. > FWIW, the "bug" wasn't really a "bug", just a pear policy > on the file structure that was decided after some years > of Pager's existence, and which didn't affect Pager quality > at all. I hardly think it gave PEAR a bad name, even > considering the care I had always given to Pager. > > BTW: the new rank information doesn't appear when > there are no open bugs for the package. Not sure > if it is intentional. Hi Lorenzo, Sorry to single your Pager package out, no harm intended of course :). The bug itself doesn't, but the number of open bugs that are more than 2 years old does give PEAR a bad name, regardless of what their contents are, because it implies things are unmaintained. It will encourage us to deal with the bugs, or mark them as not important/bogus if they should be. The rank information disappears because when you have no open bugs, you are in the elite of elite, and that looks even better than a ranking. I could change this, if people feel it is important, and do a pseudo-#1 for all packages with no open bugs. Greg