Re: On PEAR quality issues and natural selection

Stefan Neufeind wrote:

On 9 Apr 2004 at 14:03, Hans Lellelid wrote: 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.

You can only prevent package death up to a certain point. Package deprecation should be allowed. Granted, it's not good. It forces other packages to rewrite code eventually so they can use new features. However, it is sometimes a lesser evil. The greater evil, today, is having a gradually stale package occupy territory and prevent other, more efficient packages from providing the same function.

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc