Re: Something about PEAR policy

nloboek@e35203.upc-e.chello.nl wrote: > > In article <3B5A0976.250BB60@fast.no>, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > > >After all this is open source, if the rules or practice are too strict, > >someone will fork or start a similar project, which I would consider a > >failure for PEAR. > > Why would it be considered a failure? If one thing leads to another good > thing it should make the original coders proud, even if the forked project > thinks the original code is bad or lacks x, y or z. _I_ would consider it a failure because of my own personal goals, which are more about creating a community for sharing good, reusable code. This community should of course be able to replace bad code, but if it has to replace itself, well... :-) > >So to get out of this mess we need to define PEAR more clearly. Maybe > >we could have avoided this situation if I had been more into writing > >philosophy instead of coding in the beginning, but today that's not my > >job anymore, it's ours. > > I think a lack of documentation is the real problem. Most coders are not > familiar with the api documentation that is currently used. I agree totally, but lack of (easily accessible) documentation is a bigger problem for "end users". The situation I was trying to describe was the one among code contributors. - Stig