Re: [PROPOSAL] Package 'ImageText'

<stefan@neufeind.net> wrote : > On 11 Oct 2003 at 13:48, Bertrand Mansion wrote: > >> <tobias@schlitt.info> wrote : >> >>> Am Saturday, October 11, 2003 12:03 AM [GMT+0100=CET], >>> artikulierte Stefan Neufeind <stefan@neufeind.net>: >>> >>>> In this point I must support Pierre: >>>> Thinking about the consequences and possibilites a bit further and >>>> following the discusssion I'm also against releasing it as >>>> ImageText because it would surely be best to later move it into the >>>> GD-util- package (whatever it will be called). Maybe you could >>>> sketch a GD- tool-package, implement some small but useful >>>> functions and for the time being mostly concentrate on the >>>> Text-part? In my oppinion it would be okay to first start with the >>>> text-part of the package and do a first 0.1 or whatever ... but >>>> since we want to keep the number of packages small and try to never >>>> drop packages altogether (because they are completely integrated in >>>> another) we should consider aiming at the "big" GD-util-package >>>> already! >>> >>> Sorry, Stefan, I think Pierre was against that GD2 package, wasn't >>> he? >> >> Can I remind someone here about a certain package that never released >> any code, that is supposed to be in Pear but actually is not: >> http://pear.php.net/package/Image_Graph >> >> Thus, I don't understand why Stefan tries to block this package that >> actually is a good start, when the package he proposed was accepted >> without showing any code. In the meanwhile, this dead package blocks >> the proposal for other packages: >> >> >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=106153833230211&w=2 >> >> Looks like it's easier to comment others proposal than to actually >> write the code. > > Hello Bertrand, > > I am really sorry for this, and yes - you are right. I've been busy > for quite a while now and have already written concept as well as > basics for Image_Graph. Up to now it's not in CVS since it's not yet > good CS etc. :-) > > Some people have contacted me about Image_Graph and contributed there > ideas which I tried to integrate in the idea of a good an extensible > package. So the concept has been modified a bit several times. > > I didn't forget about it and I'm deeply sorry for the inconvenience > this might have caused. Will try to put a basic version in CVS > tomorrow for discussion of the the and hope to get a v0.1-release > done next week. Is that okay with you? I am not pushing you, I just notice that this "package" blocks other package proposals that could deal with the same tasks. Having an Image_Graph package is IMO very important in PEAR, and proposals shouldn't be blocked because of a not yet existing package. I suggest you commit some code to CVS or just tell us you don't have the time to work on it, in which case this package should be removed from the package list (just like this one: http://pear.php.net/package/HTML_Table_Sortable). Then, there will be room for other proposals. This will probably be dealt with PEAR QA Team or whoever is in charge of this bureaucracy. Bertrand Mansion Mamasam