Re: Re: PEAR_ErrorStack Quality

On Jul 5, 2004, at 7:22 PM, Aidan Lister wrote:

Plus it might help to remedy the PEAR stigma that already exists.

I doubt this, the stigma that exists is propagated by people who enjoy having stigmas. They dislike PEAR because it's PEAR, not for any other reasonable reason.

Then they do have a serious problem. If they dislike PEAR just as a concept they should start coding their own solutions and live that way. We are doing our best to provide some valuable extensions but we hardly have to please everyone. If their assessment is so superficial and given that they aren't even client I would highly recommend to these "I-wont-use-pear" to shop elsewhere.

snip

When ErrorStack was proposed, it was proposed as ErrorStack. There was a great deal of discussion about the name, and everyone was discussing how nifty the package was. Then, out of the blue (from my perspective), an email appears with "well everyone loves this package so we'll integrate it into the core and delete the proposal". Now, I was very, very new to PEAR then so there may have been a lot of discussion I was not privy to, however it seems that the name was not decided by common consensus.

I see your point but I also think that there isn't a need for common consensus in this case. The majority rules and I wouldn't certainly put an obstacle to someone who did so much for PEAR as Greg did. You voiced your opinion, he replied. It was a no, let's move on ;)

My point is this: I think we should seriously think about the choice of name for such an excellent package, and not put unnecessary barriers in the way of success. I don't think the success of this package depends on having PEAR_ or not in its name. It it does, then we do really have very

superficial users ( and I know that this is not the case ;) ) Cheers David Costa