At 17:15 21/3/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > I definitely don't agree with this definitely. A good thing about
> > opensource projects is that there aren't committees and thick rule books
> > that move and act at the speed of a dinosaur. When it begins to look that
> > way, you know you're in the wrong direction.
>
> OpenSource does not mean careless committers and bug-riddled
> software. OpenSource software can excel in code quality and
> stableness.
>
> Your personal goal seems to differ from that target. I think
> that is a pity.
Your argumentative tone is also a pity.
As for the issue at hand, we differ greatly at the amount of importance we
attribute to considering rules as if they were God-given. I care about
PHP's quality a lot, quite before you were even a contributor to the
project. I'm not coming to downplay your caring, but I'm not sure what
makes you think you can downplay mine.
The fact that you see what I say as if opensource software means
bug-riddled software or careless committers still doesn't mean that's what
I'm saying, and obviously (as I'm sure you know deep inside), it's
not. That's just your binary way of looking at things, which is thankfully
not shared by most people. I stand completely behind what I said, but
obviously not behind your summary of what I said.
The bottom line is that, as I said, the trick in good opensource software
is taking calculated risks, and mixing agility with quality assurance. One
can look through your binary glasses, and then it's either complete lack of
quality, or complete lack of risks, and one can look with reasonable
experienced eyes and strive to get to the right mixture. I, for one, don't
enjoy looking through these binary glasses.
Zeev
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
