Re: [Call For Votes] PHP::Fork

Martin Jansen <mj@php.net> escribió > 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. In my case, I never had the need to check it before. I'm a developer. I'm supposed to be lazy :) > > 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 mostly agree with the text Greg proposed. Keeping a low barrier to entry for alpha code, and requiring quality when quality is to be expected (for stable code) seems like the right solution to me. > > I think its time we fix our standards by starting from a clean slate with a > > PEAR2. > > -1 for PEAR 2. I'm -1 for this too. Xavier http://www.xavier-noguer.com/