Re: PEAR a way forward

On 10/5/06, Jeff Moore <jeff@procata.com> wrote:

On Oct 5, 2006, at 12:34 AM, Greg Beaver wrote: Taking a step back, let's look at these "good" ideas: which ones succeeded? The answer is quite clear. Ideas that start as ideas have at best limited success, and at worst a terrible track record of offending and scaring off developers. Ideas that instead start as technical solutions and implementations eliminate the need for ANY political discourse, and make our lives better. Hi Greg, A very Interesting analysis. I'm an outsider, but I thought I'd comment anyway. What I get from this analysis is that PEAR needs some sort of incubator where technical solutions and implementations can grow up outside of the political process. One of the things I thought that channels were supposed to do is to help some opposing views co-exist, by providing multiple official PEAR channels. Why hasn't this happened? Perhaps SVN support and branching support in the various tools would help support this?

You're misunderstanding here. Channel support allows other people to create their own channels and still install the same way as PEAR. You seem to be saying that there should be multiple official PEAR channels, each with different ideas or views. This wasn't the intention. PEAR *may* have multiple channels in the future, but they would all be PEAR channels and would all follow the PEAR views. In actuality, there are other channels out there with other packages. The only one I can think of offhand is pearified.com (since I have a package on it). The point is that we (Greg) have built in the infrastructure to allow others to use our distribution system on their own hosts. -- Justin Patrin