| Helgi Þormar Þorbjörnsson 2006-11-07, 6:57 pm |
| On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:00:49 +0100, Christian Weiske wrote:
> Greg, Helgi,
>
>
> 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.
>
> Wording may be not optimal; please make suggestions.
>
> 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.
Actually it is enough, if you'd read the guidelines to PEAR then you'll
see that docs aren't required until you are releasing stable versions so
I'd say that either guidelines have changed while I wasn't watching or
that you haven't read them carefully enough :-)
I for one don't want to get nagged about none stable packages when I don't
have to have docs on them (don't take it the wrong way but having a tool
that goes against the bible, i.e. the guidelines is kinda odd and bad IMHO)
> 1) If the package.xml is outdated, it needs to be fixed. 2) While it is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.
Take a driver approach to the package ? Shouldn't be too hard to support
the current way (so people not with access can actually use the package)
and yet have a pearweb driver to get the full performance and easy of use.
Maybe Greg can write the driver or someone else in QA but the struct is
easy to get from CVS as anything else on pearweb ;)
I also know that out of date package xml file is not good (tm) but that's
more often the case then not.
> Even if they are unmaintained or deprecated, they should have
> documentation.
That's a none sense, so if I have a package I don't intend to maintain or
I created a new package that actually has docs then I still have to make
at least one page per package ?
Please, it's not like every PEAR dev doesn't have enough on their mind,
that's something a doc team could do for an instance if it's so crucial to
have a one liner docs.
> Yes.
>
> +1
>
> +1
Right ......
> By the way, even today (in #pear) I asked again, and Arnaud agreed to
> send the mails out.
Ohh I didn't know he got god rights to PEAR (= But all phun aside then
from what I can gather in your email then what ... 4 people said okey to
this whole email flood ? (if I include Arnaud and Greg)
Maybe I'm being too harsh on this whole thing but I think it the concept
needs a little tweaking before being as affective as it can be and still
follow the guidelines.
Loath me if you like but I think this is pretty important what I was
trying to get across here above.
- Helgi
|