Re: About proposal Networking::Net_IMInfo

On Wednesday 21 April 2004 01:58, I found a note on the whiteboard from Andrew Heebner saying: > 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. > If the problem is having to rewrite bits of the code I'm sure there are people around (including myself once get the current batch of work I'm doing) who would be willing to help - personally I would love to have the package available for use, but I have some reservations about it. > 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. > As has been said already, most of the PEAR devs are hugely experienced developers - amongst them are core developers of PHP itself, who know how to work the language to it's benefits, and people who have developed huge websites. And anyway, I don't think any of the PEAR devs isn't also an end user themselves, or they wouldn't be around here. > 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