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

Clay Loveless wrote:

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.

Clay you are getting quite worked up here. I was saying that Greg is mixing issues. If he needs to solve an issue regarding optional dependencies he obviously needs to look at optional dependencies. But this does not mean that every single unit test needs to bother optional unit tests and as such Greg was mixing issues when he took the issue of ErrorStack and mixed it with the fact that he is debugging an issue with optional depdencies. Finally argueing that Pierre does not know the pear installer (1.3 or 1.4) is stretching your argument well within the reach of personal insult. I personally do not know the code, nor have I made claims to the contrary and I take great care to make informed comments when I do comment on the topic. regards, Lukas