Currently, the compliance field defaults to "3-Completely compliant."

There is at least one module rated completely compliant that uses non-compliant
global identifiers.  My guess is that the contributor failed to examine this
field before submitting, so it defaulted to the erroneous level.

I suggest that there be no default for this field (while keeping it mandatory,
of course), so that the contributor will be forced to make an assessment.

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message 
news:web.48925d23b25275ba85de7b680@news.povray.org...
> Currently, the compliance field defaults to "3-Completely compliant."
>
> There is at least one module rated completely compliant that uses 
> non-compliant
> global identifiers.  My guess is that the contributor failed to examine 
> this
> field before submitting, so it defaulted to the erroneous level.
>
> I suggest that there be no default for this field (while keeping it 
> mandatory,
> of course), so that the contributor will be forced to make an assessment.

Hi Ricky,

The one I've seen reported was the Galaxy contribution where all of the file 
names were compliant, but the variable and macro names needed to be prefixed 
with the unique identifier. The contributor has now updated it with a 
version that fully conforms and I've removed the older non-conformant 
version.

3 is the default because non-compliant submissions are discouraged, so a 
compliance rating of 3 should be the norm. The application checks what it 
can (file names, licensing statements etc.) when a compliance rating of 3 is 
specified. It doesn't parse the whole file though so it'd be difficult to 
make that 100% bullet proof. If something slips through I think we can get 
it fixed when someone flags the issue.

Regards,
Chris B

Post a reply to this message