Re: Re: About the package proposal interface

Hi Derick, On Sunday 17 August 2003 11:22, Derick Rethans wrote: > The problem that I see is that a lot > of people vote +1 for either the idea, or because > they-might-sometime-need-this-feature too. I think that's wrong. IMO > packages should be useful for a large group of people before put into > PEAR. So the question should be "Is this package useful for a large > group of people?" instead of the current "Is this package cool or might > it sometime be useful to me?". Think outside yourself people... I haven't been around the PEAR community very long, and I know you have, so you can disregard my opinion if you choose, but shouldn't PEAR be a home for any package that provides an easier way to carry out a specific task? I'm not talking about applications, but rather wrappers and interfaces on to protocols, file types, technologies, etc. that might take a while to write by oneself. There are some packages in PEAR that are unlikely to be used by a "large group", for example, Net_Gopher (no disrespect to Sara Golemon, it was plucked for the statistics page), but if it is useful for just a small group of people then surely it is worth it? I envisage PEAR as a place for relative newbies to PHP (or even more experienced types) to visit if there is something they're going to do with a protcol, file type or technology that they are unsure of how to approach. What are you reservations about large numbers of packages? Quality? Administration? Surely with a rock solid QA (volunteer here) and administration process, PEAR can avoid becoming the trial and error reputation of other script sites? Your opinion would be interesting. Kind Regards, David Grant