RE: [PEAR-DEV] On PEAR quality issues and natural selection

>I was not getting defensive. I was more getting annoyed by this attitude >. Docs in PEAR are severely lacking. However if you think that the docs >for PHP itself have been written by the developers you are very wrong. >Actually alot of developers were sort of hoping that opensourcing their >apps would result in people helping them. However your attitude sounds >more like with opensourcing they also have a responsibility to write >docs. However making documentation a requirement inside PEAR (maybe even >just for stable packages) is something that can be discussed however. It >doesnt seem to follow in with the anything goes survival of the fittest >theme that was also brought up in this thread. Well I've always assumed that the creator of a package should be the one to document it, being as no one understands the ins and outs of that package better than him/her. This is something I've never understood! Why would someone bother contributing a package and then not document it? >Err I dont get it. So do you want to remove or expand the regulations? The readability of code is important, of course, which is more common sense than regulation, that being said, just expanded. Its like saying "Thou Shalt not Kill".. its a moral obligation to post readable code. The no tab requirement seems silly to me also, since there are a multitude of text editors that can adjust those on the fly, convert them to spaces, etc. It also increases package size. (Just another thought) >Of course I am. PEAR is important to me. This doesnt mean that I dont >appreciate idea to how to improve PEAR. And understandably so. >discussions are generally a good idea if they are contructive. I have >seen little in this thread that fits this criteria. Most of the comments >are driven by fairly incoherent personal tastes but not really a concept >of how PEAR could work differently. I agree that the manner in which this discussion was presented didn't quite appear constructive. But, I think its more an outpouring of frustration. Which in itself is constructive as well. As mostly an observer of PEAR-DEV I can see both sides of the argument. Those hard-working folks that donate time to PEAR don't want to see it bashed. And those annoyed by PEAR's obstacles want to see them changed. When you combine masses of highly intellegent people such things are bound to happen from time to time. Everyone wants their own solution! I like David's ideas! I would be willing to contibute to enhancing the documentation, if I understood docbook and CVS et all. Regards, Richard York