Re: Re: PEAR_PackageFileManager Roadmap

On Jan 19, 2008 7:10 PM, Laurent Laville <pear@laurent-laville.org> wrote: > Helgi Þormar Þorbjörnsson a écrit : > > On Jan 19, 2008 6:36 PM, Laurent Laville <pear@laurent-laville.org > > <mailto:pear@laurent-laville.org>> wrote: > > > > Gregory Beaver a écrit : > > > Laurent Laville wrote: > > > > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> Just to keep you aware, that what will be the roadmap of > > >> PEAR_PackageFileManager (PFM) in next days. > > >> > > >> I've asked to be active again as package leader for release of > > PFM 1.6.3 > > >> in November 2007. But since this release, I've no time to fix > > waiting > > >> bugs and requests. Working on other packages (HTML_CSS / > > PEAR_Info). > > >> Now it's over and I can begin to work again on PFM. > > >> > > >> My Roadmap is as below : > > >> > > >> - Fix unit tests suite for PFM 1 : I've noticed that there are > > 16 failed > > >> tests and 75 passed. > > >> - Begin a full rewrite of PFM 2 unit tests suite with PHPUnit > 3.2.x > > >> > > > > > > This is the only one I question, PFM uses .phpt for its tests. > > Stick > > > with that instead of introducing a huge dependency just for > > running tests > > > > > > > > If I want to use PHPUnit its only for PFM2 (which is partially unit > > tested), and not PFM1 what will keep .phpt > > > > After all PFM 1 will be deprecated one day ; when PEAR will drop > > support > > of package xml 1.0 > > > > And PFM 2 what support package xml 2.0 is future; Last but not > > least , > > I know more PHPUnit than .pht > > > > > > There isn't much to know about .phpt, it's the simplest thing, not > > sure I'm all that comfortable with seeing a testing framework change > > in a stable package, from a QA point of view but it's up to you tho, > > still feels like a risky move. > > > > - Helgi > > > > > Helgi , > > I don't think it's a risky business (move) to finish an incompleted > package unit tested under another testing framework (like PHPUnit) > > 1. because all PFM 1 will still stay as .phpt which can now also be > proceed by PHPUnit > 2. because I only want to write unit tests for PFM 2 which was still > un-tested since a long time > 3. my other remarks about deprecated package xml 1.0 (and of course PFM 1) > Well incomplete or not, the package is stable, and if I understood you right then you didn't understand .phpt fully which kinda makes me worried as to how you'll port the tests over to phpunit without missing something but I do admint that PFM2rather few tests But wouldn't you find it confusing if you came across a package with 2 tests of test frameworks in place ? > 4. I don' know another volonteer (than me) until now to build unit tests > suite and fix all bugs/requests awaiting , and you ? Okey are you seriously going to argue that you're the only person in PEAR that fixes bugs and does tests for them ? Don't you feel like you're stepping over a line here in terms of proper communications ? I must ask you to chose your wording in next emails more carefully and with more respect to your fellow developers, we have no room for arrogance. Regards Helgi > > Laurent > > > > > > >> - Fix waiting bugs > > >> - Release a new version 1.6.4 > > >> - Work on waiting requests > > >> - And release a new version 1.7.0 > > >> > > >> If I miss something, don't hesitate to give your comment. You > > are welcome ! > > >> > > >> Laurent > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > >