Hello Pierre, amen!, You're noted as no. But other people see a reason and continue to discuss *please* without you. We will take your vote in as no when it comes to voting if ever. If you are interested in explanations then I suggest you read all mails and blogs again until you understand the reason why some peole need a CLA.
marcus Saturday, February 2, 2008, 9:33:13 PM, you wrote: > Hi, > On Feb 2, 2008 8:52 PM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > all we need is to extend the PECL database with a license type field and >> > a >> > CLA flag. Nothing else is required at that end. But we should still move >> > as >> > much from php-src/ext to pecl as we can. > There is no place for CLA in pecl either. I still see zero reason to > tolerate CLA in pecl.php.net or anywhere else. >> I was just trying to find a way that would be acceptable to php.net and also >> would mean PDO2 driver development doesn't have to wait on PECL process >> decisions, but actually my off-list feedback says even a PECLA module >> wouldn't be an acceptable option for some. > It is not OK for me (to list one). The last attempt to create this > exact solution (flag in pecl with automatic download of pdf to sign > etc.) was sadly a failure. As it begins well, the communication > between the company and us was not good at all and it was not possible > to get answers in a reasonable time or simply no answer at all. Wez > was also involved and was the initial contact between the company and > php. > -- > Pierre > http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
