Adam Harvey wrote:
I share Richard's concerns about finding out "what is the real one"/best
> one/latest one.
I didn't understand the problem when Richard first posted, and I still
don't now, to be honest. The canonical repository is the one the
php.net Web site points to. Surely it's not any harder than that?
In theory - yes ... as long as there is an agreed way of pushing/pulling other
peoples changes back into the 'master' copy. It is a matter of 'management' of
who does that process?
The Hg code base is probably a good example of the potential problems ... ( and
git is little better? ) ... You get the CORE software from mercurial, but the
extensions are all over the place, and it's those that make it work for many
people.
PHP has the potential of falling into the same 'trap', since extensions such as
the ones Derick highlights are just the tip of the expansion areas, and while
the core code can be ring fenced, some of the pecl and other extensions could be
managed in third party repos which as highlighted, could potentially be more up
to date than the original code from which it was forked.
Once you have a local copy, doing your own thing, and just pulling in the
changes you like is nice - except you are not running a 'standard' distribution.
I feel there should be a better distinction between 'managing the code' and
building a released distribution? Some projects are using 'clone' as a way to
remove the need to create a stable release, and that I feel is wrong?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
