RE: [PEAR-DEV] Packages and documentation

Joshua Eichorn wrote: [..] > 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. Where, what, why? Reputation: Does it really have a bad reputation? Infrastructure: What do you mean? How could we improve this? Documentation: Right - many packages haven't a nice documentation but all packages I used yet provided at least a nice example. Yes documentation is important and we don't have to discuss that again as documentation is required by rule. IMHO everybody developing for PEAR, including me, knows that it's very important. So as time is short the only thing we could do is to provide examples and short readme's keeping in mind that we _have_ to do the documentation ASAP. When a package moves into PEAR the work isn't finished. There are feature requests, API changes, bug fixes, improvements,... So we can't always sit back and doing documentation work. Most of us have daytime jobs and some even have family. It needs much time management to do open source development so sometimes things aren't as they should be... just my 2 cents Daniel Khan