Re: [PROPOSAL] Package 'ImageText'

On 11 Oct 2003 at 14:40, Bertrand Mansion wrote: > <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). Alright. Then I'm lucky I haven't over-reacted to your first email - because I somehow got your tone a bit wrong it seems. Will work on it to provide code in CVS soon. Thank you Stefan