Re: On PEAR quality issues and natural selection

On 9 Apr 2004 at 14:03, Hans Lellelid wrote: [...] > Don't get me wrong, what I'm > expressing is a frustration and the feeling that PEAR could be truly > great. It could be great by being far more closed & exercising a great > deal of scrutiny over packages *or* it could be great by being far more > open, allowing for all sorts of competing packages and being welcoming > to anyone in the PHP community. I like the latter method because I > think the quality of the code in the end will be greater. I think that > the fittest do definitely survive. Yes, but the problem is that we try to prevent having too much orphaned, unmaintained packages which are maybe full of bugs or lack a lot of functionality. The fittest will survive - agreed! But the idea was that no package should be removed from PEAR (if possible) to maintain compatibility with any package or app that might have a de on that package - and therefor we can't allow 10 competing packages entering PEAR with only one or two surviving. Generally I get your idea - but such a step would imho be much counter-productive for PEAR in general, PEAR quality and PEAR reliablity in special. Stefan