Re: [PEPr] -1 for RFC::Prefix all classes with PEAR_

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > Joshua Eichorn wrote: > >> You did read the RFC right. The only examples are a php4 packages. >> And the word ALL is 5th word in the RFC. > > > yes i did read it .. > >> Were doing PEAR 2.0 >> all packages target php 5.1+ and have a prefix of PEAR_, no new >> packages will be allowed in PEAR 1.0 > > > honestly i think a lets start from scratch approach is best too. but i > do not think that this will get a majority. i would love to see an > updated CS (with all the group regulations and maybe some idea borrows > from eZ), updated PEAR core package and all new namespace and packages. > all using a new organizational structure. pear 1.0 can live on during > that time. and it will be 6 months before pear 2.0 can produce anything > stable. 6 months? With what team? I have only seen "wouldn't it be nice" from folks with no "I am free to dive into this as a coder". Coding the PEAR Installer is not like adding a Validate extension for Nauruan banking codes :). It took me a year to do the changes from PEAR 1.3 to PEAR 1.4. With a team of 10 *competent* developers working 3-4 hours a day on the installer, 6 months to a first stable version is a real possibility. Without that, realistically, it will take much longer. Greg