Vote Details for "Prefix all classes with PEAR_" by jmcastagnetto

» Details
Voter: Jesus M. Castagnetto [Wishlist] Vote: -1 (not conditional) Reviews: Cursory source review
» Comment
As other pointed out. Pushing this proposal a this time is not the best thing. Even if the proposal means well, it has a scope that is way to wide for its intent. Trying to make all existing packages conform to this is not practical, not to mention confusing and not woth the effort at the moment. Also, there is no consideration as to the mechanism to accomplish all what it proposes. Who is going to do it? What is the timeline for accomplishing this? Who is going to do QA for this process?, etc. Personally, I'd rather have a more complete discussion how are we going to move for the next stage of PEAR, and how are we going to build the infrastructure of people and resources to get there. Wouldn't it be better to re-propose this RFC when things are a bit clearer? It will be better than having something that is hardly enforceable or doable, and will just gather dust and perhaps will need another RFC to modify or revoke.