RE: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR_Info...

Hi Mirco, > this package is great work, but how come that the first official release > in PEAR, the first package you build has package state: stable? > > I dislike ppl saying their first releases they did are stable from the > beginning on... > also 1.0.1 had already a little bug/mistake in the package and you had > to release a fixed version one day after the original "stable" release, > > I don't want to blame you or anything, but first releases should be > alpha (if software is completly new) or beta (already testing done...) Well I worked on and with DB_NestedSet 1 year and did only mark is as beta because of tiny new features just added bevore the release - I could have marked it stable for this initial release too. The package itself was rocksolid stable - as I thought - 2 bugs occured now after some ppl are using it. But even if a package is marked as stable bugs may occur - that's a fact. Even in historic stable versions of the linux kernel bugs are found sometimes. IMHO if a developer thinks his package is stable he should mark it as that. Who should know better than he/she? The other way would be to have a pear QA team which does the work of setting the status of the release :)) But maybe a possibility to add user comments to a package in pearweb would be useful - so one who is really thinking the package is far from stable could tell this to to the world to find peace :) greetings Daniel Khan