[PEPr] Comment on RFC::RFC_PackageVariableNamingConvention

anatoly techtonik (http://pear.php.net/user/techtonik) has commented on the proposal for RFC::RFC_PackageVariableNamingConvention. Comment: Guys, you are crazy with all your bureacracy. PEAR CS purpose was for resolving conflicts with: 1. CVS 2. Global Names 3. Automatic package processing "1." is about whitespaces - some editors change tabs to whitespaces, some are not and often people have own settings for tab display. so if you add a line or two of spaced lines among tabbed - smb. will see it a bit differently on than you in finally code will become unreadable. This also concerns brace placement - while you walking through the code you can change them to your liking, and after the patch these commits will contain fixes in annotations, which doesn't have anything in common with a patch itself. It becomes more hard to track bugs via CVS. "2." global names are subject to conflicts, that's why they need to follow a common convention to be unique. "3." PHPDoc comments with package info and so on. Self-explanative. Now about your proposal. I personally don't like to waste my time. Have you ever tried bring external class to PEAR and synchronize it? I had such experience with XML-RPC. When I was deep in the process of extending XML-RPC, PEAR guys didn't allow me to use CVS to commit the patches and made Daniel Convissor maintainer of this library. You know what happened next? Instead of integrating patches and fixing bugs he started to "adopt" package to CS changing quotes, fixing instructions and all that stuff. I was completely p..sed off. Recent code ejection vulnerability fix for XML-RPC never left my HDD, because instead of investigating the code to make a proof-of-concept I had to sync my version with new XML-RPC to redo my previous patches. Can you imagine my anger if he decided to change variables also? Your proposal means more work for developers, and this work is not connected neither with functionality of package nor with making maintaining/usability easier. I like PHP for it's flexibility, freedom and RAD. "confusing mixture" is very personal feeling to limit freedom and force developers waste their time. Variable naming must be convenient for maintainer of the package in the first place. My +1 goes to: Philippe Jausions [2005-08-05 20:35 UTC] Consistency within the package itself is the most important factory. Markus Tacker [2005-08-05 07:38 UTC] I don't like the idea of forcing PEAR code even stricter. A package should be consistent. Tobias Schlitt [2005-08-04 22:26 UTC] This discussion is completly usesless and pure crap. Keep everything as it is so far. P.S. I better add to recommendation to CS - do not change code to CS in unstable packages, because it makes harder to track bugs. Proposal information: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=282 -- Sent by PEPr, the automatic proposal system at http://pear.php.net