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

I completely disagree with this. Here is why: 1.) When I use a library I'd like to think that from package to package the library maintains some sort of conformity (ie. toArray() is a common function in many packages as is ::factory()). 2.) I like knowing that each package follows the same naming rules and variable rules as well as documentation as well (ie. you may use something other than PhpDocumentor). The list goes on ... The reality is also that when people vote -1 it's because it's a generally accepted bad practice to do whatever the author is doing (ie. using a deprecated function). I knowing that before a package hits the shelf (so to speak) that more than a few well-trained eyes have looked it over and made sure things are kosher. --Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Heebner [mailto:andrew@evilwalrus.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 8:59 PM > To: 'Alan Knowles' > Cc: pear-dev@lists.php.net > Subject: 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 > > > > > > > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >