On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 12:56, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
> > I agree 100%.
> >
> > Also, do note that all common extensions will still be direct aliases.
> > Meaning there should be no difference from a development perspective
> > (we'll still have the same set of extensions in cvs, for all practical
> > purposes). The only difference is that when the release manager goes
> > ahead and makes a new release, he'll grab the latest stable release from
> > PECL (which is aliased), instead of using whatever happens to be in CVS.
>
> But if that is the only motivation here, we don't need to move anything,
> we just need developers to tag their extensions when they deem them stable
> and makedist simply checks out the latest stable version of the extension.
> Problem solved. You need a better reason for highly disruptive CVS
> changes.
>
Problem not really solved. First and foremost, managing two branches is
a lot more error prone then just creating a new release. When you
"only" commit stuff to stable, operations are not entirely atomic and
you don't have proper versioning in place. In order to achieve a
similair result you would need multiple cvs tags, and the rm would have
to choose the right tag.
This is also the only "current" reason from a "development perspective"
or a "QA perspective." From a user perspective there are other reasons
as well. One of the major ones being the ability to go:
]$ pear install mysqli
Because they (or their sysadmin) forgot to compile PHP with mysqli
support. This only works on UNIX at the moment, but that's 90% of our
userbase that would gain immediate (when PHP5 is released) benefit.
While I think a Win32 port of PEAR/PECL which works as nicely as the
UNIX version is a great idea, its not really a necessity for any of
this.
The Win32 people, as things stand today, not only decide what extensions
get bundled, but they often decide on a different set than what is
bundled with PHP. Therefore, using PECL, they could even say ::
./build-release win32
And get the standard set of extensions that would be bundled with
win32. They could further choose extra extensions from PECL, etc. etc.
etc.
The driving idea is that we have a standard distribution and management
point for all extensions. Its not only for clarity (although that's a
good reason in itself), but it also has practical advantages as well.
Its important that we get the barebones version of this in-place, PECL
needs to become the first class citizen. Then we can go ahead with some
of the more optimistic goals.
-Sterling
--
"A business that makes nothing but money is a poor kind of business."
- Henry Ford
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
