Re: addition to PEAR2 coding standards that may be controversial

Alan Knowles wrote: > <snip snip..> - see note on when a package is created on pear website.... >> How's this look: >> >> ===Package acceptance into PEAR2=== >> Packages can be proposed either as >> 1) A completed, or relatively complete package to Pepr >> 2) A concept, or proof-of-concept to svn.pear.php.net/PEAR2/alpha >> >> For proof-of-concept packages they should >> >> * Post a public notice to the pear-dev mailing list stating the >> intention to begin development >> * Request a new package be created on the pear.php.net website >> > This was the concern - HTML_Template would probably have fitted into > this category, and never got off the ground really... - It was never put > into the website, correctly so... - Perhaps that means that it should > have stayed as a Pepr proposal, rather than registered as a real package.. > > Thoughts? > > Otherwise looks fine... One clarification on what it means to add a package to the website: because packages of stability alpha or lower are not public, the site would only be visible to PEAR devs who are logged in, and alpha packages with no activity for a year would be automatically deleted. This would mean in the real-world case of HTML_Template, here is what would have happened: 1) HTML_Template gets added to svn.pear.php.net/PEAR2/HTML_Template/ 2) PEAR2_HTML_Template gets registered on the website as an existing package so that roadmap/bugtracker are accessible but it is not visible to the public (unless they request to look at alpha packages), or in "pear remote-list" (in other words, not added to pear.php.net's REST interface either) 3) one year later, after no activity and no code, PEAR2_HTML_Template is simply deleted Does this address your concerns? Greg