Re: PEAR a way forward

I think we should create a mission statement that addresses these questions. Your's would be: PEAR's mission is too create a set integrated easy to use components or something along those lines. I'm not sure what eZC's goal is so using that as an example isn't that useful for me. I do know that the Zend Framework has a very active community even with the CLA etc. There mailing lists get more traffic then pear-dev for example since they actually get input on code throughout the entire life development life cycle. -josh Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

Joshua Eichorn wrote:

I believe that PEAR is a turning point, both in it's organization and development, and in it's continued position as a leader in the php developer community.

I agree.

this will quickly lead to key questions like: many people in the past have complained about pear being too elitest (as in not allowing in simpletest because there was phpunit and simpletest did not adhere to pear standards and would have had to be changed etc.) so do we want to be a repository of the "best" php libraries? or do we want to go more in a direction of providing a coherent library? the question of overlapping packages is one of the hard topics in that department. personally i think we now have pear channels for people to put together their "best" php libraries .. if we are to change pear, then i think it should be more along the lines of ez components, but with a true open source feel to them. none of the CLA, clean IP bla bla, one way street, open source. heck we can even jump start pear 2.0 by ripping code from eZC and ZF and adapt them to our regulations. for example autoload() seems to not really fly well with bytecode caches etc. just to remind people eZC and ZF produce some fine classes, but they simply do not have the same numbers of developers due to their CLA/IP regulations. regards, Lukas