RE: [PEAR-DEV] Solution: secondary maintainer

> From: Pierre-Alain Joye [mailto:paj@pearfr.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:52 PM > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:41:13 +0200 > LIMBOURG Arnaud <arnaud.limbourg.prestataire@cegetel.fr> wrote: > > > The thing is that we cannot say "Here is PEAR, it's the official > > repository for PHP. Oh, and btw, there is no support and you might not > > get help or an answer and please don't bother us" > > I agree (who do not?). Explain me now how to respect a minimum timeline > to__answer__ questions? or even fix bugs? > > That does not exist in any opensource projects and I doubt we should > have to be the 1st to propose this kind of "Free Commercial Support". Or > do you have some nice idea to pay the support team? > > I mean that sounds logical to take care about orphaned packages. But do > not mess with "maximum delay to post a fix, or answer a question", this > is just impossible to follow. And we are not "PEAR Inc.". Well if there are people willing to address the issue then we shouldn't pass up that opportunity. However in order to ensure that we don't mess up the package for more long term developments and more importantly mess up the package for the developer these should be marked as qa releases (as cox suggested). However we should also consider the risks of this fix being too short sighted, opening other bugs etc. Therefore generally we should wait for the maintainers to take care of the situation. Depending on the gravity of the issue and scope of the big fix a different timeframe of delay may warrant taking that risk. So I think a general recommendation should be made in terms of the timeframe. However there should be a group of people who need to decide on a case by case basis. And I would prefer to have this group be pear qa in the long term (pear group for the shortterm). Regards, Lukas