Re: On PEAR quality issues and natural selection

On 9 Apr 2004 at 20:55, Alexey Borzov wrote: > Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > Especially about the "allow competitive packages"-part Alexey > > mentions I feel a little worried. Then we will end up like other > > class-collections are already, with the hundreds implementation. And > > this is imho one of the best features PEAR actually has. > > I don't honestly think this concern is valid. > > I'm not advocating removing the proposal process and using an "anything goes" > attitude. I just want to dump the need for a new developer to jump through hoops > to prove that his *well-written* package is "different enough". Okay, then we're talking about (almost) the same things :-)) I got your idea like you wanted to "lower the barrier for new entries", possibly by removing restrictions for what can be entered etc. When from time to time somebody is adviced to please not duplicate this or that code in his new package but better use the existing code for a part of what his packages does/needs, this seems good to me because such code can be maintained in a central place and not in all 5 or 10 implementations again and again. About the template-engine-topic: I personally like Smarty quite much. And I'd like to see a pear-installable package for it. However, I'm not wanting to propose Smarty to PEAR (don't even know what it's maintainers would think about it), but I'm really looking forward to the channel-support in PEAR - which imho will be a big step. PS: But if the maintainers of Smarty would like to contribute I'd definitely vote Smarty should join! > Most of the things in the "class collections" are sh*t and don't have a chance > of passing the PEAR proposal process. :] I see. So we're talking about lowering the barriers without lowering the quality-standards. But the "careful selection" of packages in the proposal process and the improvement of packages until a proposal is really accepted imho is useful for bringing "quality" to the packages. Stefan