Re: usage of PEAR_Exception

Mark Wiesemann wrote:

Hi, Joshua Eichorn wrote:

I don't think we really want to summarize something we already voted on. If its not clear from the RFC we need to put more work into writing RFCs. [...]

I didn't want to say that we have badly written RFCs. But we need to make sure that the RFCs are read. And I doubt that everyone has the time to read ten or more rather long RFCs in addition to e.g. the Coding Standards section of the manual (which should also be revised, maybe some RFC should at least be mentioned or incorporated there). And to give a specific example: We have a RFC named "VersionNaming" [1] which seems to be available also on the Group pages [2], but is missing in the "PEAR Group Administrative Documents" chapter in the manual [3]. And actually this RFC is ignored. Two examples: XML_RPC2 violates it (there was no reaction on pear-qa), and almost nobody uses a version number like 0.9.0beta1. Having that many places this can only lead to confusion or to the problem that people don't find the right documents. Just remember Alexey's E_STRICT RFC -- how many people were surprised about it when Joe called for comments on Services_Digg? [1] http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=65 [2] http://pear.php.net/group/docs/20040226-vn.php [3] http://pear.php.net/manual/en/group.php Regards, Mark I agree we need a central place for RFCs, and with your comments in mind I think they could all use a review, and maybe a summary of each one would also be good.

I'm going to put together a formal proposal for how we should handle RFCs (including updating them etc) and see if I can get it approved by the PEAR group. Let me know if you'd like to help put this document together. -josh