Re: Re: why bloated packages are bad (a case forsplitting up large packages)

Lukas Smith <lsmith@php.net> wrote: >> Lukas, if you're read bug #5085 prior to writing your response, you'd know >> why Greg's unit test was pulling in all the optional dependencies. > > A bug in the optional depencency handling has nothing to do with the > issue discussed at hand. I think it has more to do with the issue at hand than you think. One of the issues at hand is that people on this list are making comments as if they are informed about something without actually _being_ informed. Pierre's doing it with the ErrorStack issue, and Lukas, you just did it again with your comment stating that Greg's unit test for bug #5085 -- a bug with optional dependencies -- didn't need to bother with optional dependencies. You said: > If you structure your unit tests accordingly then you dont need to download > the optional dependencies obviously. This type of statement is very much part of the issue at hand. Pierre is taking a vehement stance about something HE HAS NOT READ. He even says: > And no, the actual code base has _nothing_ to do with my > oppositions. Period. Doesn't anyone else see the problem here? People involved guiding the PEAR core project HAVEN'T READ THE PEAR-CORE CODE. It's absolutely ridiculous that anyone who hasn't reviewed the code in question has a say in what should be done with it. Getting back to your original statement here, Lukas -- the issue here is very much related to people making comments without reviewing what they're commenting on. Please don't get in that habit as deeply as Pierre has chosen to. -Clay -- Killersoft.com