Re: Packages and documentation

Sterling Hughes wrote:

A package without a documentation is almost like no package at all.

An ape without a penis isn't a mouse unless its thursday.

On the other hand, I don't think that a package should be refused approval just because the documentation is not written yet. If the author claims that he will write the documentation once the package is approved, he should be trusted, otherwise, why give him a PEAR account at all ? What about a rule stating that a package can not get the status stable if there is no approved documentation ?

So, let me rephrase this: you essentially want to punish productive people by labeling their stable, high-quality working software unstable; you aren't willing to devote either money or resources into improving their package, however, because you don't have exactly what you want, you will mislabel the package in order to demotivate them into doing what you want. Survey Says: You will be well suited for a position in management. I think what he is saying is PEAR has a bad reputation and the reason isn't because of the quality of the code (at least not in most cases) but the quality of the documentation and surrounding infrastructure. I think that its a fare implication that people aren't going to use code thats well documented, and I also think its fare to say that people in PEAR don't document other people's packages.

Now maybe the solution is to get more people then the developers documenting code, but ignoring the missing documentation (especially in a rude and childish manner) isn't the solution. -joshua eichorn

-Sterling