Re: On PEAR quality issues and natural selection

Hans Lellelid wrote:

Hi Lukas, Lukas Smith wrote:

Yes, absolutely. From my perspective PEPr has changed nothing about what gets accepted or rejected; (Do you think it has?) it's just made the process more systematic. It hasn't even changed who can vote, has it?

How many packages have been rejected since PEPr?

I don't know. (I know the answer is not "none", since Config_Registry was recently rejected, right?) How many were proposed? How many suggestions never materialized into proposals? I'm actually really asking since I'm assuming you have these statistics more at your disposal.

Actually I dont. Only one has been rejected. DB_Table and DB_OO are examples of packages which havent made it into a PEPR proposal mainly due to the immediate danger of being rejected.

I think it's different -- but maybe I don't understand the channels feature. What I'm talking about is a network of repositories that anyone can create. PEAR will never be that will it? This is the powerful feature, IMO, that the ZZ/OSS crew is promising. At that point my question was -- "why pear?". Many of the advantages (dependencies, etc.) will be addressed by a system that requires no "stamp of approval" from a small community of PEAR package owners.

Channels will effectively allow people two create their own package lists. Essentially it will allow people to define their own PEAR package list. Users can define which channels they want to access and in what order. But Greg can probably explain it best. 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 07