Re: addition to PEAR2 coding standards that may be controversial

Markus Fischer wrote: > Hi, > > consider this: you're a new developer and hacking around in svn on your > soon-to-become beta project like a monkey and then the vote is negative > and your work won't see the light of the day, at least not on pear. > > Ok, this is an extreme case and such a vote must have reasons, too. But > this is the first thing which came into my mind after your suggestion. > > I agree that the current status needs improvement and I am very > unfortunate that I cannot make a better suggestion now, but maybe > someone else can. > > In my mind I've this picture of the man, given the torch to run and he > runs and runs but then isn't allowed to pass the goal ... > > Maybe I'm exaggerating this point. Hi, After Alan and Markus's initial criticism, I revised the language to this: ===Package acceptance into PEAR2=== Packages can be proposed for PEPr as new ideas or as completed code. Development for new packages must be at svn.pear.php.net. A package must undergo full review by a collective when moving from alpha to beta status, but it is expected that this review will be ongoing as development progresses to make the review a smooth process. PEPr is used by the collective to vote on documentation, test suite conformance, and API. Does that look acceptable? Now the only big change here is that packages can be proposed as ideas and started as development from scratch in svn.pear.php.net in addition to being proposed as fully fleshed-out code. The whole of PEAR still votes on package acceptance as we do now, that part of my changes was dropped. All of these proposals would require tweaking to PEPr, but that's a minor issue. Greg