Re: About proposal Networking::Net_IMInfo

On Apr 21, 2004, at 2:58 AM, Andrew Heebner wrote:

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 disagree. You are probably taking it too emotionally, I understand.

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.

I hardly need to remind you that PEAR is a community with high quality standards. When you propose a package, expect to receive some feedback on your coding standars, like it or not.

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.

Not really. A maintainer can leave a package behind and PEAR QA and other volunteers will have to deal with your code. I personally like your package and almost everyone said something like "I like it but please...:" You received some -1 with comments and, in my opinion, self explanatory suggestions on why they didn't vote +1.

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.

Yes but the votes are not for the public, but to other developers. A user might be extremely happy with a package using the "it works" mindset. We need to look a bit further. All the best with your package. Regards David Costa

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