Re: proposal: HTML_Template_ReIT, round 2

This whole thing is ridiculous. For the record, I'm for your package/patches/whatever, but your approach is all wrong. You've come into a rather young project (PEAR) and pissed off a number of people. Re-opening a thread with inflammatory shit like item #2 is not the way to get support on this list (or any other). PEAR is a community project. It's largely a meritocracy, but it's not completely, and here's one good reason why: PEAR is a community; not just a repository. When developers get in a pissing match on-list, it's bad for PEAR. When one of those people is new and the other is a long-standing member, people will often side with the long standing member. Getting into a fight with someone and then forking their code base in the same repository is a little insulting. If IT[X] was my project, I'd be pissed too. If you fork one project against the wishes of the maintainer, what's to stop you from forking other;s in PEAR? That's a concern because whether it's good for a particular package, it's bad for the community. Forking a project is seldom really necessary or positive. It's confusing to users and dilutes the developer pool. So.... I'm -0 on the package, +1 on finding an acceptable patch to IT[X]. +10 on people learning to get along. George On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 12:39 AM, Alexey Borzov wrote:

Thus I want to have a separate package, so I wouldn't _have_ to cooperate with people not wanting to cooperate.

See that's the problem. We do have to cooperate. It's a group project. If you can't get along with the group, you'll encounter great resistance here (and rightfully so, IMHO).