Re: Finally PEAR_PackageFileManager 1.6.0 b5 is canceled

Hi Laurent, Laurent Laville wrote: > With statistics back on pear website, I was confronted to the hard > reality : a lack of interest to PEAR_PackageFileManager 1.6.0 > > > First, we can now see [1] how few people get the pretty stable version > even if it's under beta state. Average 250 downloads/month. > > Compare to another package [2], I used myself, in same case, but with a > better popularity (1000 downloads/month): Structures_Datagrid 0.7.1 Do you really want to compare a end-user product like Structures_Datagrid with a mostly internally used package PEAR_PackageFileManager (and maybe by external people that use the PEAR installer for distribution)? That's not realistic. My personal opinion about PEAR_PackageFileManager: It's nice to have such a package that can generate the package.xml files, but I don't see how I would benefit from it for existing packages. Updating the changelog and setting the release date needs to be done anyway -- either in the script and calling PFM after that, or by direct editing the XML file. Also for new packages it is easy to copy an existing XML file and edit it. But if the package contains a lot of files, I see a big advantage of using PFM. Don't get me wrong: That's just my opinion. There are many developers in PEAR that use PFM and they seem to like it. And don't get the other people wrong: Getting no feedback happens often. There are people that are really not interested in a package, then there are people that like the package, but are satisfied with the current version, and there are people that just don't have time to try out everything. All of this shouldn't stop you from working on PFM. Back to your comparison: PFM's audience is for simple reasons smaller than SDG's. I would be happy about this amount of downloads if I were a maintainer of PFM. Regards, Mark