Re: Re: About the package proposal interface

On 17 Aug 2003 at 12:22, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Bertrand Mansion wrote: > > > With the recent proposal and the release of Stream_Var, it became > > evident to me that a minimum time for voting is necessary before the > > developer is allowed to add his work on PEAR. > > What about atleast a week? Doing it in a weekend like was done now > seemed totally out of decency to me. I also know that quite a lot of > people wanted to cast their (-1) vote on this. > > > The whole voting session for Stream_Var took one afternoon, that's > > not enough if you really want to review the code and not only vote > > for the idea like some did (see the mail archive). > > > > Also, when people like Wez and Derick vote -1, I think it might be > > useful to take a bit more time before committing the package. I am > > not sure those -1 were counted in the final count. > > Although I did not put "-1" formally into my mail, I'll do so now :) > (An Wez put -0 there, and not -1). 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 think the package might me useful / interesting for people "outside ourselves" :-) But as stated correctly on this list: We list discussed (and liked) the idea. Source was not yet complete for a first release. 1) So what do you think is bad about the idea of Stream_Var? 2) To the developer: When will the source be ready for review? Stefan