On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Michael Wallner <m...@php.net> wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 00:12, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So you want the http package to be moved to git.php.net?
>
> Yup, and pecl/ares.
ok
> And I'd probably like to have repos for
> pecl/propro, pecl/raphf and pecl/pq, or can I create those myself?
>
These are the packages that you recently proposed, right?
It seems that we haven't created those, so that should be the first thing
to do.
Creating a new empty git repo is easier for us than migrating one from svn,
but still requires special permissions and human interaction (adding the
new repo to the gitolite config), so you can't do that, but drop me a mail
when the packages exists and I will create the repos.
>
> > We could split the repo, but I think we should either split the package
> > also, or if you plan keeping a single package then the code should be in
> the
> > same repo imo.
> > What do you think?
>
> Totally agree here, I'm arguing with myself about that, but just can't
> find a good name...
>
Will you still maintain the 1.x branch or the first stable relase of the
2.x branch will EOL the old one?
>From your messages I suppose that you will continue the support for some
time, I just wanted to make sure that I understand correctly.
We don't really have similar case in pecl AFAIK, but in pear there are a
couple of packages where a package got a rewrite which made it incompatible
(usually the php4->5 rewrites) and they usually named the new package as
${oldpackage}2, so in this case it would be http2 which unfortunately could
cause some confusion related to HTTP 2.0, but maybe this is just me.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
