Re: QA category

Joshua Eichorn wrote:

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

Joshua Eichorn wrote:

Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

Christian Weiske wrote:

Hello all, I asked on pear-dev which category my QA_Peardoc_Coverage tool should be put in, and common sense was that a new "QA" package category should be created and tools put in there. Perhaps PEAR alone is enough if not more QA tools come. Could you please decide and add the group so I can add the package?

Creating a QA category might give incentive to get more tools in :) Arnaud.

A top level QA category that is specific to PEAR sounds kinda confusing, why not do something like PEAR_QA_Peardoc_Coverage, so its clear this is a PEAR specific QA tool not a general purpose one?

You have a point. It may look like pear is providing qa tools to the public whereas the aim is to have qa tools for pear itself.

Well considering that we are sort of a role model and all our infrastructure is open source based, I think that even if this is very specialized for PEAR infrastructure, I could still see other projects using our QA tools. regards, Lukas

Thats true, Peardoc_Coverage just seems pretty Pear specific for me. Plus I hope no one else follows our lead in doing docbook documentation, its hard enough to get good docs with the low bar of entry a wiki provides, once you raise the bar to docbook its hard to want to spend the time to write any at all.

Doesnt this piece of code for the first time validate the usefulness of docbook atleast to some extend? I did not look at the code, but I assume he is using some of the markup of docbook in the parsing. regards, Lukas