Re: Missing package documentation reminder

Greg, Helgi, >> Aren't we sending out enough global emails as it is ? I did announce this step five days ago, awaiting answers if that is ok or if there are any objections. The two replies I got were positive. >> Btw. it's "stupid" to say a package is useless without docs because >> that's >> simply false information :) Wording may be not optimal; please make suggestions. >> emails, especially when the package is marked as beta, if those emails are >> going to be sent out then please do so only on stable package where I'm >> actually listed ... Many, many packages in PEAR are stable only but widely used, and do not have any end user docs. So sending it only for stable packages is not enough. >> Use the database, not an outdated package.xml file (it >> even seems a bit of wasted cycles to use the package xml because we have a >> DB for this stuff) 1) If the package.xml is outdated, it needs to be fixed. 2) While it is easy for the QA_Peardoc_Coverage package to scan package.xml files since it needs to check the .php files of the packages anyway (see [1]), I don't have any information if it's possible to access the database from outside or how the structure is. >> Even a better idea is to send these emails out only on maintained >> packages (i.e. not marked as unmaintained or deprecated) Even if they are unmaintained or deprecated, they should have documentation. >> Just my 2 cents, might have missed siome discussion about this since I only >> look at the lists ever so often but so it goes, I got rather curde internet >> access at work so I can't really look it up. Yes. > I think all deprecated packages need a 1-page manual entry that links to > the docs for the new package, just as packages like phpdocumentor need a > 1-page entry linking to external docs. Perhaps the reminder email could > suggest this as well. +1 > As for the email being useless, I think the fact that there was a reply > on pear-dev from a developer I've never heard of before asking how to > write docs completely refutes your argument :) +1 By the way, even today (in #pear) I asked again, and Arnaud agreed to send the mails out. [1] http://xml.cweiske.de/pear-developer-docs.html http://xml.cweiske.de/peardoc-coverage-extendet.html http://xml.cweiske.de/peardoc-coverage-simple.html -- Regards/MfG, Christian Weiske

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc