RE: [PEAR-DEV] Changed goals

> Christian, PEAR has not changed its goals. The "should we allow > overlapping packages" discussion was over and done with two years ago, > not now. I agree that having two IT packages is silly, but if some > people don't listen to reason, maybe some exposure to sillyness will > make them calm down and cooperate. OK. Then I just missunderstood PEAR's goals. Sorry for this. I thought competitive is "OK" in rare situations, but should be avoided if possible (technically possible). And I thought competetive classes should be really diffrent in the way they work and what they offer. A fork does not match this definition. So sorry, that I didn't get this right. > If you ask me, I think you're giving up a bit easily. What would PEAR > be if everyone who disagreed with me just ran away? Not much, I can > assure you. I do not only disagree with you. I don't like the way PEAR is going and this won't change ... I do not have the power to change this, so why should I work on a project where I do not like the goals? To make that clear: I thought PEAR wants to be an ressource of high quality code for specific problems. You want to do something and first of all you take a look at _THE_ PEAR class, which does this thing, cause you can be sure about CS and quality. Having 1000 classes in PEAR is much worse than having 30 good classes IMHO. OK. Having 2 classes with really diffrent approach matching diffrent real life needs makes sense. Christian Dickmann