Re: PEAR_ErrorStack Quality

If you plan on making it a separate package, why would it still be "Pear_ErrorStack"? I'd love to use ErrorStack like I use any other package (in non pear projects), but I feel most other developers would not, as I would, because it sounds like a PEAR internal class. "Davey" <davey@php.net> wrote in message news:40E780F0.7020509@php.net... > Dear Pears, > > I am writing to propose with PEAR_ErrorStack. > > Firstly, I would like to point out, that putting "Alpha" code inside a > package marked as "stable" should be a no-no. The entire package should > be marked at the state of its lowest common denominator. (Perhaps we > need an RFC on this? :) > > Secondly, I think that the quality of PEAR_ErrorStack is suffering > because Greg is forced to wait on release of the main PEAR package to > release PEAR_ErrorStack. (Don't take this badly Greg, even the current > code is awesome! :) > > I would like to propose that we seperate PEAR_ErrorStack in to its own > package. We can then either have it as a dependency for PEAR (bad IMO) > or just make it part of the default install. I understand we're removing > all non-essential packages from the bundle, but in this case I would > make an exception. > > Is it possible for the PEAR package to include the latest > PEAR_ErrorStack files when release, and then have it as a seperate > package also? the former would just overwrite the latter, but any new > releases of PEAR_ErrorStack would then overwrite the PEAR files - or > does the installer forbid this? > > I think its *essential* to developers and users that PEAR_ErrorStack > always be available, I also think that its essential to the package that > it have its own release cycle. > > Thoughts, comments, questions, no flames, please respond > > - Davey > > P.S. > Totally off-topic BUT: > > I haven't looked at the code, but is there a reason we haven't moved > PEAR_Error to PEAR/Error.php and just included it in PEAR.php for BC?