Re: PEAR_ErrorStack Quality

Aidan Lister wrote:

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.

And PEAR_Info sounds internal too then, I take it? - Davey

"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?