Re: [pear-webmaster] Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: [pear-webmaster] Re: [PEAR-QA] Thought about unmaintained package (Net_IRC in this case)
| From: | anatoly techtonik | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:57:28 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [pear-webmaster] Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: [pear-webmaster] Re: [PEAR-QA] Thought about unmaintained package (Net_IRC in this case) | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | Groups: | php.pear.webmaster |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-webmaster+get-3778@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello Pierre-Alain,
>> I propose to make only one "status" table, where status will
>> reflect only the most important issues in package lifecycle and
>> monitor that lifecycle.
PAJ> A single boolean containing the deprecated status is simple and
PAJ> perfect. Though we need an unmaintained flag as well, so this field
PAJ> should contain one of these status:
PAJ> - default (active, alive, whatever)
PAJ> - unmaintained
PAJ> - deprecated
PAJ> A link should be displayed to easily allow one to ask for
PAJ> maintenance of a given package.
Could you, please, comment my previous letter in this thread dated
Wed Jan 19 12:46:48 2005 ?
http://news.php.net/php.pear.webmaster/3750
Especially interesting are your positions on separate
status table.
PAJ> QA guys, tell me if that fits your needs, could be quickly added.
PAJ> --Pierre
--
anatoly