Re: failure to act on PEAR_Frontend_Web by Pierre Alain Joye

On 2/17/06, Bertrand Mansion <bmansion@mamasam.com> wrote: > bertrand Gugger wrote: > > >Bertrand Mansion wrote: > > > >>This reminds me a situation we had a few years ago with ITX and Sigma :) > >>I hope this time it will end up in a better way. By the way, is OOH_Form not > >too > >>cold in Siberia ? ;) > >> > >> > >Is "PEAR::Net_Growl" > >http://www.mamasam.com/projets/net_growl hot in Paris ? > >Why is it named "PEAR" ? > > Because it extends PEAR, what's wrong with it and what's the point ? > Forget for a minute that you're a long-stanging PEAR developer. If random people name their packages thus it dilutes our "brand" so to speak. It makes an implicit assertion that such a package is *part* of PEAR when it actually is not. It has not passed any review and is not an official PEAR package and yet it bear's the name PEAR::Net_Growl. This is all aside from the code (which I have not looked at) and what else it uses or extends. This package may very well be well done and you may be preparing to propose it to PEAR as I type this. That still doesn't change the fact that the package *is not a PEAR package*. (Of course this package is *not* on the PEAR pages and is *not* installable by the pear.php.net channel, but these are only ways to find out that what seems to be true is not.) This looks like a useful package for OS X developers. Are you planning on proposing it to PEAR? -- Justin Patrin