RE: [PEAR-DEV] [Call For Votes] PHP::Fork

> From: Xavier Noguer [mailto:xnoguer@xavier-noguer.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 3:41 PM > Martin Jansen <mj@php.net> escribió > > > (http://pear.php.net/manual/en/developers.contributing.php) > > > > It is pretty funny to see how much developers have actually read the > > "Developers Guide" ... > > I've read that guide. I just don't seem to be able to take it seriously > when > it lists requirements that have never, as far as I know, been voted by the > pear group or the developer community at large, such as regressions tests > (http://cvs.php.net/diff.php/peardoc/en/guide/developers/contributing.xml? > r1=1.8&r2=1.9&ty=h) I agree here. While previous mistakes don't make a wrong a right, I think our whole manual lacks any consistent concept of what we really feel needs to happen when and where. Anyways we have a bunch of messes that are a result of the long period of limited peer review, followed by a period of package inflation, followed by the today ruling confusion. I think its time we fix our standards by starting from a clean slate with a PEAR2. There we can think about how to best deal with our developer and users base and how to great the best possible code in a PHP version which actually supports our needs for OOP. PEAR1 should of course be maintained as we all have an interest to keep that code running and to use PEAR1 as a momentum towards a PEAR2 which build on the past experience. <rant> PEAR1 is now suffering from the fact that it focused from a long period of building technical foundations without planning the community growth at the same time. This has lead to numerous problems and is making us very inefficient. Of course PEAR1 has a lot to offer, but I don't think we are scaling well and past mistakes seem to haunt us more and more, which we don’t seem to be able to fix. So I think we need to recognize our past which we of course need to maintain to remain credible, but at the same time we should work to build a more scalable PEAR2 in which we can address our issues on a clean slate. </rant> > Would you be so kind to point me to the pear group document or public > discussion in which this requirement was approved? There is no such decision I can remember. As George pointed out we discussed this point in Amsterdam, however I don’t remember that anyone decided on requiring documentation at first commit. However our decisions there were mostly only concepts and not complete. Anyways maybe someone should check when this was commited anyways. Regards, Lukas