Process for package submission to pear2.php.net

[mattfarina]

What is the process for package submission to http://pear2.php.net? Can this be documented and easily displayed in the UI?

[gauthierm]

Hi Matt,

On 2011-09-13 15:48, Matt Farina wrote:

What is the process for package submission to http://pear2.php.net? Can this be documented and easily displayed in the UI?

There's unfortunately (maybe fortunately) not a formal process for
package submission in pear2.

The informal list of steps is:

1. create a unique package that follows the coding standards
2. host the package on github
3. contact a pear group member and ask it to be included in pear2
4. pear group adds the package to the pear2 collection on github
5. pear group adds the package to the pear2 channel on pear2.php.net

I agree this should be outlines somewhere on the website but I have not
had time to work on it for a while :/ If you're feeling ambitious you
could try to add it and add a pull request on github.

Cheers,
Mike

[boenrobot]

Isn't it the same process as with PEAR1? i.e.
http://pear.php.net/manual/en/newmaint.proposal.php

(I almost feel stupid for going that route)

[saltybeagle]

@boenrobot Not exactly. The PEAR group has decided to allow any package to start development and release alpha packages through pear2.php.net, but they cannot be marked as beta until they meet the all PEAR2 standards and pass some review.

The PEPr process for PEAR2 hasn't been clearly defined as there's no packages targeting a beta or stable release yet.

Here's some details on what was proposed by the PEAR group:
https://wiki.php.net/pear/rfc/pear2_policy

[boenrobot]

@saltybeagle
Well... errr... I would like to be the first to propose my package as a beta then. I believe I've fulfilled the requirements for a beta^[1], and it seems like I'm the only one for that sort of a collective...

How exactly do we proceed?

On a side note, I've thought about splitting the transmitters into their own package, which would essentially be a PEAR2 replacement of Net_Socket (with a few differences from it... of course); How do we go about that?

[1]

• CS, check
• Full API docs, check
• Unit tests... as long as one has a virtual or real RouterOS installation hanging around, ~96% check, 100% if PseudoServer.php is started OR if the transmitters are taken out into their own package.
• Tutorial docs... given PhpDocumentor's inability to handle my code, and the lack of tutorial support in other generators, I can't generate tutorials... How are those handled in PEAR2?

[saltybeagle]

After reading through the PEAR2 policy document, the only obstacle I see is "API must be approved by 2/3 of the collective developers (this will probably be a blanket stamp for most packages)"

Given that you're the first package within that category, and the Net collective doesn't event have 3 developers yet, I'd release it as alpha first. But I think you're further along than any other package.

Splitting the transmitters into something like Net_Socket sounds like a great idea.

[boenrobot]

Originally, I intended to even ask for an RC release, but given the PEAR2 policy on version changes, beta is more appropriate since it allows for API changes, and I have a few ideas on how I might change the API still.

But alpha? I don't think you'll find many people willing to write stuff for routers, so if this remains alpha, it will be so forever. Heck, MikroTik has had this API for years now, and it looks like before me, only two other people (both credited in the MikroTik wiki) bothered to make something for PHP.

If you mean releasing the transmitters as alpha... yeah. That sounds appropriate, and I'm sure there will be people interested in contributing to that. After all, it's a more generic kind of package.

But anyway, the "How exactly do we proceed?" was more in terms of "Must I host the package on github?" (I kind'a like sourceforge... and SVN... but I'll adapt if I must), "What stuff should now be done by whom to what now to move things forward?" (the answer of this being somewhat dependent on the answer to the first question).