Re: revision to the standard that would make me happy

Travis Swicegood wrote: > Hey Greg; > > On Jun 30, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Greg Beaver wrote: > >> 2) also extends it to allow sub-packages to reside within their parent >> package directory, which supports a re-factoring model that has been >> common - and successful - in PEAR. > > The problem here is that you're assuming that what has been successful > in PEAR means it is successful everywhere. What works for PEAR > doesn't necessary work for everyone else. In the new standard there > is no distinction between package/sub-package. Everything is a > package. Everything is it's own directory. > > Again, this comes back to adjusting a standard with a larger audience > than PEAR to fit PEAR's needs. As I noted earlier, this can be > addressed programmatically without having to add the additional > complexity of "what's where". > > One package, one directory. It's much simpler than one package, > generally one directory*. > > * See fine print for when this might not be the case. > > >> So we don't lose any of the rigor, and gain flexibility. Does this >> modified sales pitch change your mind? :) > > I believe above stands as my answer. I'm happy to be swayed by a > majority of non-PEAR developers showing me how I'm wrong, though. ...and this is why regrettably I must say I can't support either the standard or its advocate, Travis, for re-election to PEAR Group. Someone making decisions for PEAR should be advocating *for* PEAR, not against it. Thanks, Greg