Re: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] DTD-0.3 (alpha) Released.

<paj@pearfr.org> wrote : > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 19:02:04 +0200 > "Tomas V.V.Cox" <cox@idecnet.com> wrote: > >> Well, XML_DTD sounds the best, but I choosed just DTD to easy the >> class naming: XML_DTD_Parser, XML_DTD_Tree, XML_DTD_XmlValidator, >> the target installed paths: XML/DTD/ and the long file names. > > Lazyness is not allowed around ;-). > >>> Did I miss something or has there >>> been no voting on the package? >> >> There was no voting yes. I primary started this package as an addon >> for the main PEAR package, of course makes a lot more of sense to have >> this as a separate package than including this directly into the main >> PEAR package, don't you find it so? >> >> Please tell me guys if you have any inconvenience with this package. >> I'm sorry didn't want to bypass our burocracy :-). > > Go ahead, it's a kind of subpackage and yes it's more usefull as a > separate package, even if PEAR apis will require it. > > This is not a bypass from Tomas. This package is required by > the API. Providing it as a separate package adds more flexibility to > anyone who would like to use it. Does that mean PEAR developers are allowed to commit and release subpackages or even new packages as long as they might be needed by the packages they maintain, without requiring votes beforehand ? For instance, can we add a few (sub)packages that work with HTML_QuickForm without consulting other PEAR developers, if we need or want to. For example, was it allowed for us to release HTML_QuickForm_Controller as a new package without requiring any votes from other developers ? I am asking because as stated by Tomas Cox, it's cool to be allowed to bypass the bureaucracy, this makes the process faster. I also have a few other packages for QuickForm that might benefit from this, so please clarify the situation. Thanks. Bertrand Mansion Mamasam