Re: [Call For Votes] PHP::Fork

On Sun Nov 09, 2003 at 01:1549AM +0100, Lukas Smith wrote: > > From: Xavier Noguer [mailto:xnoguer@xavier-noguer.com] > > Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 3:41 PM > > > > 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. So why did nobody speak up before? Those stuff has been in the manual for months and obviously nobody had a problem with that before. > 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. It should be up to the PEAR Group to isolate the problematic passages and come up with better formulations or additions. I'm willing to merge them into Docbook then. > I think its time we fix our standards by starting from a clean slate with a > PEAR2. -1 for PEAR 2. -- - Martin Martin Jansen http://martinjansen.com/