Re: Template Proposal

Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck@horde.org> wrote: > Jim, no one is going to twist your arm and say you have to move your class's > source control, whatever, into PEAR because people want to use it. i know that, and you know that. i'm just laying out scenarios that hopefully make it easier for more people to see that. don't read too much into what i'm saying and assume i'm taking a hard stance on anything in particular. i just see points of confusion and possible confusion that i think would benefit from having people be more explicit about what it is that they are saying. > But the idea is that for people who want some kind of a standard core > library, that stuff should be in a central place and under peer > review. Not some special, mysterious label of 'pear developers'. It > should be consistent. There are people who _do_ want to submit code to > such things. well, as of right now, i think the label of 'pear developers' is mysterious and special. who are they, and what makes their core library the standard one? just because i want to submit my frobnicating class to the 'standard core library', does it get to go in? > If you don't want any of your code in it, well, then it won't be. Put > it in the CPAN-like repository instead. Hell, put copies of everything > in the core library into the CPAN repository too, with different names > (I think having a unique name is about the only criteria that should > span both repositories), tweaked the way you want them. Don't use the > core libraries; pretend they don't exist. Your choice, and I'm not > going to - and I'm not interested in - convincing you that you are > wrong. i'm less concerned about code being duplicated from some 'standard core' into the 'freewheeling repository' than i am about duplication the other way around. that worry comes about because, historically, it has already happened at least once. (when edd dumbill's xml-rpc code got 'pearized'.) i don't see how this duplication of code is really in anyone's interest. > But it's a difference of opinion that isn't really worth debating, > assuming we provide the infrastructure for both sides. It'll always be > there, and the A people are never going to convince the B people, and > vice versa. Trying is just wasting all of our time. hey, if people think i'm wasting their time, just tell me to bug off. but i see a lot of really loaded terms ('pear developer', 'standard core library') being thrown around that signal to me that there are people who presume a world that is a lot more black-and-white than it is. jim