> On Mon Jun 09, 2003 at 03:1630PM +0100, James Cox wrote: > > By moving PECL into the limelight. This week, I will be > > splitting PECL into it's own cvs module, and (after discussion) I'd like
> > to create a version of pearweb for pecl.php.net, essentially seperating > > the PEAR and PECL projects. > > While I agree that it's a great idea to make more usage of > PECL, I don't think that the plan to set up pecl.php.net as > an independent site will help us much: It will result in > having to maintain yet another site and fixing bugs in the > codebase of pearweb and peclweb (which will be nearly > identical) will eventually turn out to be a nightmare. > > Instead I suggest to make pecl.php.net an alias for pear.php.net and > (optically) highlight the PECL packages there, so that > interested users can more easily find them. (I offer to help > you doing this.) This way PECL becomes more visible and we'll > only have to maintain one site instead of two. > Actually, it should be fairly easy to use the same codebase for two different sites and have a few if statements to stylize the site depending on which url is going to. (btw, pecl.php.net is already an alias for pear.php.net, I don't think I have setup the right apache config though) Why do this? I think that the pear people should focus on managing the PEAR libraries, and perhaps some ext developers help move PECL in the right direction. It's like someone telling me that I'm now in charge of some sheep. I don't really know much about sheep, how to control them, or anything, so I wouldn't do a great job. But... I know just a little bit, so perhaps they wouldn't die in the first week. -- james -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
