RE: [PEAR-DEV] About proposal Networking::Net_IMInfo

There seems to be a very thin line between constructive criticism, and making the user rewrite his/her entire code to suit the 'specs' of PEAR. I feel PEAR needs to loosen it's grip on the noose that the PEAR dev's wrap around everyone's neck, and allow the user to write the code the way *they* want to write it, of course, in conformity with the PEAR coding practices. After all, it *is* the maintainer's job to update the package when needed, so I don't see the big deal behind not allowing a package in, or voting -1, just because we didn't do what you told us. In all, I feel PEAR needs to loosen up, and allow the user to decide what *they* want the end user to be able to use, not what the PEAR dev's want. Other people use PEAR too, not just PEAR devs. Just my $0.02. ~ Andrew Heebner -----Original Message----- From: Alan Knowles [mailto:alan@akbkhome.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 8:33 PM To: Stefan Neufeind Cc: pear-dev@lists.php.net; andrew@evilwalrus.com Subject: Re: [PEAR-DEV] About proposal Networking::Net_IMInfo In this particualar case it was difficult to give it a +1 conditional, as my -1 reasoning was that the code wasnt even viewable, so it could not be reviewed properly.. before getting a +1 conditional. It does sound like we need a way to comment only, even after it has gone to voting.. (and the ability to edit the proposal during voting..) Regards Alan Stefan Neufeind wrote: >Hi, > >it seems to me that there were different people heading in the same >direction but with different votes. E.g. I for myself put a +1 with a >condition to make the package more flexible (thinking of driver-based >etc.) and widen it's functionality. Others like Martin and Stephan S. >thought mostly / exactly the same way, but gave a -1 for this with a >"I will change this to +1 if ..."-condition. Shouldn't this have been >a +1 conditional? > >Anyways, imho it might be a good idea for Andrew to speak up about >the requested changes, if he intends to change the functionality of >the package or not. Then maybe it might be a good idea to restart the >voting-process as soon as that is cleared. > >PS: Maybe it's just me who's feeling this way - but that voting is >imho somehow running in a crazy way ... > > Stefan > > >