Re: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] HTML_QuickForm2-0.5.1 (alpha) Released.

Hi Daniel, On 26.10.2010 2:31, Daniel O'Connor wrote:

Yeah, my bad: it was on http://pear.php.net/qa/packages_closed_reports_no_release.php ; so the tools picked it up. Mentally I've skipped over ones where I'm aware of changes, BC breaks or complexity; but I didn't recall anything happening on QF2.

That's why manual checking helps: there was already an updated package.xml in SVN, it shows that some stuff did happen. http://svn.php.net/viewvc/pear/packages/HTML_QuickForm2/trunk/package.xml?r1=295963&r2=304185

Re roadmap - I like the idea in general, but to my knowledge Alexey and a few other developers would probably be vastly in the minority with the use of it. In fact, looking now; I probably still would have pushed out a QF2 release. Re timeframes vs releases: Alexey, you've got 7 requests/bugs fixed :D People love bug fixes!

People also love new features and well-written release notes, that's what release 0.5.0 should be about. The problem with your tool is that it overwrote package.xml for 0.5.0 without checking whether 0.5.0 was already released, so we got 0.5.1 without 0.5.0 first and with release notes not describing major new features! I also think that a package.xml for a new release is as good a roadmap as any other.

http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=14110 looks like (at first glance) something which has been fixed; after being broken for 2 years or so. Getting fixes like that out = good.

In fact, it was closed back in release 0.4.0, but then reopened and closed once again, without any additional code changes. This applies to some other closed issues, they were fixed / implemented long ago, but bugs were just not closed. Manual checks, manual checks...

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Brett Bieber<brett.bieber@gmail.com>wrote:

Hi, 2010/10/25 Alexey Borzov<borz_off@cs.msu.su>:

Hi, How can we opt out of "Automatically built QA releases"? There was a manually prepared package.xml for release 0.5.0 (which wasn't done yet because it isn't ready yet) and that was overwritten by

automatic

job as if 0.5.0 was already done. Also I don't see the point in forcing release of an alpha package where previous release was done only a few months ago. It may have some major features in development, you know.

I think package maintainers should use the package roadmap tools so everyone is in the loop about the status. Our QA team has a huge task at hand, and there will certainly be instances where they are not "in the know" with the development of the nearly 600 packages on pear.php.net. The roadmap tool should be the standard mechanism used by package maintainers so both the general public and the QA team can be aware of the active development status. To the QA team: If the roadmap shows a planned release in the future, that would certainly mean 'hands off' any QA maintenance. -- Brett Bieber -- PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php