Re: Re: in search for XML-RPC developers/maintainers contact

On 8/30/05, Philippe Jausions <Philippe.Jausions@11abacus.com> wrote: > Daniel Convissor wrote: > > Hey Folks: > > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:36:15PM +0100, Sergio Carvalho wrote: > > > >>As an aside: At what point can we call PEAR too bureaucratic? XML_RPC2 > >>saw the first idea float around pear-dev 10 months ago(!), and since > >>then has spent over four months waiting for various kinds of approvals > >>and reviews... > > > > To everyone, I apologize for taking so long on this. I have been > > extremely consumed with more pressing matters. > > > > I have looked at some of the package, but not the whole thing. What I > > said to Sergio in my most recent comments is overall, I think he has a lot > > of good ideas, but I don't think it's ready for prime time yet. > > Isn't why there are dev, alpha and beta stages? > > Are you waiting for the XML_RPC2 to be stable quality from the get-go? > > Obviously the more (knowledgeable) people using it, the more feedback > it'll get and the better the outcome will be? > > Yes, there are some PEAR CS things to fix first. Is that what you are > refering to? > > I think a lot of devs here would like to have something to test, probe > and work with. The minimum would be to check it in CVS. There is no minimum. As a sweet reminder, releases and other major version are not are not subject to vote, general agreement or anything but the maintainers choice. Each maintainer is free to commit whenever he likes or not at all (cvs is not yet a requirement iirc). Making it an alpha, dev or whatever unstable status cannot be nice if there issues more than small design changes. Keep your breath once, Regards, --Pierre