| Philippe Jausions 2008-02-10, 7:02 pm |
| Helgi Þormar Þorbjörnsson wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2008 1:52 AM, Philippe Jausions <Philippe.Jausions@11abacus.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Sounds like an idea but something we should not error on and thus people
> can't submit;
> Given it's heavy operation and the fact that not all proposals provide a tgz
> (iirc) then I'd have to think about this but you are welcome to submit a
> request ticket to pearweb, this is very doable and I'm all for it, at the
> moment I'm simply pondering how it can be implemented in a efficient manner.
>
> - Helgi
>
till wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2008 01:53:03 -0000, <pear-qa-digest-help@lists.php.net> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if all people read the following:
> If you want to contribute a package to PEAR, make sure that you have
> followed all rules concerning PEAR packages. Also, before a package
> may be released, the code code must comply with the PEAR Coding
> Standards.
>
> It's at the very top of: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-edit.php
>
> Maybe it could be bold and/or a link to the CodeSnipper package could
> be added so people see that this is indeed easy to achieve.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> (P.S. - In case, please cc me in reply.)
A relatively easy to implement solution would be to add a check box in
the transition from "Draft" to "Proposed" that would say "I ran
PHP_CodeSniffer on my proposal and it passes PEAR CS validation" (or
split that in 2 phrases/checkboxes: 1. I ran PHP_CodeSniffer, 2. PEAR CS
Ok.)
As Till noted, people don't read "long" blurp, so a checkbox might be
more effective. Bouncing back the proposal to Draft status for blatant
non-compliance could nudge people into cleaning their code first.
-Philippe
|