Re: On PEAR quality issues and natural selection
| From: | Lukas Smith | Date: | Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:37:32 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: On PEAR quality issues and natural selection | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-27265@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Alexey Borzov wrote:
But it cannot help with the packages that have poor design, spaghetti implementation or the like, and these packages will obviously have many bugs. The current rules prevent better designed and/or implemented packages from appearing.Well I was sort of hoping that our proposal process will safe us from too badly written code :-)
Here is the problem: right now the person proposing an extension to the current package functionality is in an inferior position to the package maintainer. The maintainer does not have any incentive to accept the proposal and/or help him integrate the new functionality. The risk of having (a probably better) competing package proposed may easily become such incentive.Err, no incentive? If the features make sense then I dont see a reason why a maintainer would not have an incentive to add the feature. Obviously there might be different views on the usefullness. In that case the developer can then obviously not play the "redundant" card anymore. I guess this is why Sigma eventually made it into PEAR.
Ah this is the PFC idea. Unfortunately noone has made the effort to turn his package into a PFC. regards, Lukas Smith smith@backendmedia.com _______________________________ BackendMedia www.backendmedia.com berlin@backendmedia.com Linn Zwoch Smith GbR Pariser Str. 44 D-10707 Berlin Tel +49 30 83 22 50 00 Fax +49 30 83 22 50 07Shared ownership will be very hard to do in such a large repository. Actually with the package RFC we sort of have this already. It is simply expected that changes made to a given piece of code by someone else than the original maintainer needs to follow a certain workflow.If you look closely at what I wrote, shared ownership is not intended for the whole repository. It will be for the packages submitted by their authors into this hypothetic Class Library. So there will be 2 possible approaches: 1) Natural selection for the packages in the "bigger" PEAR. 2) Artificial selection for the packages in the "smaller" PEAR.