Re: [PEAR_PackageFileManager] UserGuide and Tutorial -call for comment

Hi Laurent, Laurent Laville wrote: > I don't understand your point of view. Especially for two reasons : > > 1. I've asked your agreement to used your work one month ago > 2. Of course there are some grammar errors, but remember that > "Moliere" language is most easy to write for me than "Shakespeare" > language ;-) both of these points are just fine, and I will respond later on in this email where it makes more sense > 3. I asked your re-reader help one week ago and got no answer. I'd > really appreciated an answer something like > "I can't help you right know, but I will back to you in few days" > rather than just a silence. As I've said before, this is a fault of mine that I freely acknowledge, I responded as soon as I had a chance to look at the guide. > >> I don't see any good reason to avoid the PEAR manual. The thing is >> already in docbook! It wouldn't take long to tweak it to fix any >> compatibility issues encountered. > If someone could do the job, I'm not against idea : > More, I'd really appreciated a reference list of dockbook tags > supported. It can help myself but I think all other writers that want > to help to improve the PEAR manual by their contributions. I can help do the job, but it would be best if a group effort was involved. The way to start is to commit it to cvs somewhere. I wonder if it might be best to simply commit it into the subdirectory of peardoc that it will go in? As long as it isn't "enabled" in the build, we can tweak at will. > I've still in mind some tags not supported: this is why HTML_Progress2 > is not part of PEAR Manual Now. > And I received no mail to tell me that I 'm on wrong way or share me > his help to include my work on PEAR manual This is one of the major problems in PEAR, I don't have any immediate solutions, but some long-term painful ones are possible. If I were to give up all work on pearweb, PEAR installer, and my other packages, it would leave enough time to learn the arcane peardoc system well enough to reform it :). >> translated or edited by anyone else as long as it it outside of CVS. >> >> > Most important, it cannot be > On this point I agree with you, but the code is free to all that > accept my effort to write it and > redistribution under the Creative Commons Attribution License. This is not the same as making it easy to translate by having it inside the systemized peardoc CVS. Nothing will happen unless it is easy to do it. > >> HOWEVER, I understand and appreciate the effort you've put into this, >> and if you choose to publish the manual as an independent HTML document, >> I won't stop you. I have, however, removed myself as a developer from >> PEAR_PackageFileManager (marking as inactive) as I don't agree with the >> majority of your recent decisions, > If you're against my recent decisions, I think so I should have at > least a clean explain, isn't it ? I have already explained my dissent, I am not referring to some secret agenda that you don't already know about. A brief summary: I use package.php to update the package.xml, but you prefer the web frontend that you wrote. This often means I have to merge in changes from package.xml to the package.php script (including yesterday when I removed myself, I had to ignore the package.php script altogether). I very much disagreed with breaking BC once we went beta (this one was resolved, as you recall). Finally, I disagree with not adding the docs to pear.php.net since they're already in docbook form. I removed myself as a developer because I never want to be "that inactive guy who just gets in your way as you innovate." I don't have the proper time to fact-check the developer docs you wrote before November 21. I do have time, but my problem is internet access - when I have the time to develop, I will be on an airplane, or in a car. Without some ability to checkout an offline copy (think CVS), I just can't be helpful. I didn't even have time to *skim* the entire document - your guide is huge! This is going to be hugely important to PFM, and to PEAR users, but I am also a perfectionist, and want it to be "just right." As things stand now, I can only be annoying to you. Rather than go down that road, I would rather see you take the reigns and turn PFM into something greater. I have a slightly different vision for the package, but that shouldn't stop the active developer (you) from doing good work. I can continue giving my opinion if you want it, but I think it is unfair to continue to ask you to wait on my opinion before doing anything. It's hard for me to release PFM since it was my baby back when it was created, so I hope you'll forgive the acidic language in my last email. I can be very pushy :/ Greg