Re: Re: !!! Net_SMTP v1.2.4 is broken - please remove urgently !!!

On 12 Mar 2004 at 17:33, Lukas Smith wrote: > Stefan Neufeind wrote: > > > On 12 Mar 2004 at 17:02, Lukas Smith wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>well my perception is that everybody wants quality to magically > >>appear, however they are unwilling to accept the consequences, thats > >>why I am suggesting to concentrate on the packages where the > >>maintainer is willing to accept the concequences and not waste our > >>time with the others. > > > > > > We need to keep PEAR in mind as a whole. And therefor we can't have > > "good" packages and some that don't react to quality-improvements at > > all. PEAR has always been promoted as a high-quality repository. > > What will become if we leave all devs the possibility to choose > > between a high-quality-PEAR and a care-less-PEAR? Is the > > care-less-branch of PEAR then becoming to be phpcla**es.org? :-)) > > some will be higher quality than others. obviously us not spending > time with the packages will not mean that those developers are not > bound by the PEAR standards. So as previously suggested by someone, maybe we should involve in bringing more QA-related topic into the docs / into the PEAR standards-part of the manual? Then devs would be bound to the work done by QA :-)) PS: Don't take this suggestion "that" serious, but think if this might save us a lot of work in some parts of QA-work. Stefan