Re: Thoughts on PEPr voting frequency

Martin Jansen wrote:

I don't agree here. Even by cursory looking at the code and examining the basic API (!= extensive testing) one can easily spot major flaws _before_ they creep into PEAR.

I guess our idea of major flaws is a little different. Where brackets show up after an if statement is not a major flaw in my opinion. A package that fails to solve the problem, or does it inefficiently is what I consider a major flaw. And that requires a little more than a cursory review. I can't in good concience make a vote for or against a package that I haven't really looked at. There is a wide enough pool of talent amongst PEAR developers that five of us should be able to make an informed decision about every package. If five people can't make an informed decision about a package, then either the developer did a poor job or the package isn't really needed. Having everyone vote just to cast a vote even if they don't fully understand what the package will make it easier for stuff we really don't want to get accepted. -- Scott Mattocks scott@crisscott.com http://www.crisscott.com