Manuel Lemos wrote:
> Sure, my point is that Matthew seems to have created high expectations
> on those unreliable statistics, when I believe that in fact nobody is
> giving him any feedback about his package. I understand that his
> extension awareness is directly tied to PECL awareness and PHP 5
> adoption, thus my comments trying to explain the lack of interest on his
> extension. I honestly believe that my comments can be useful, at least
> to him.
No, you have taken an irrelevant query ("what do people think of sdo,
and oh by the way, are the download stats accurate") and turned it into
your own personal crusade, wasting bandwidth and writing FUD at the same
time. Bravo!
For someone who cares so much about PHP and PECL, you also rather
stupidly have ignored months of messages (and more months of cvs commits
and testing) about binary package installation through the pear command
which is being implemented in PEAR 1.5.x (most likely). Bravissimo!!
As Pierre said, it's fine to raise issues, but in this land of open
source, it is best accompanied by patches. peclweb is a public
repository, and I suspect in the time it took you to write both
messages, you could have located the source of the area and proposed a
patch.
Greg
|
