Re: Packages and documentation

Joshua Eichorn wrote: > Daniel Khan wrote: > > >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? > > > Ask around, its quite obvious Well, I know quite a few competent developers who would never join PEAR in its current state - some of the primary reasons being the content of this list, the lack of democracy, and the attitudes which we could honestly be without. They use only a few packages from PEAR, and should they find a bug, they might report it or even fix it, but they wouldn't do it for the sake of the community (the sometimes childish developers) - they would do it "so mere users won't have to use crappy code". Maintaining a package would be waste of time they say - they simply don't believe that PEAR have a future unless something changes wuite a bit. I once shared those peoples view on PEAR for quite some time; then I became a maintainer myself, but I'm still in constant doubt - is PEAR truely an opensource project based on a community, or is it in fact ruled by a few kings who can't stand other peoples opinions? Heino