On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 04:22, Rasmus <ras...@lerdorf.com> wrote: > On 06/08/2011 10:53 PM, Philip Olson wrote: > obvious way to game the system. Simply write a trivial extension, stick > it in svn or put it on github/codeplex/wherever and now you are in. And > in fact Azure has such a trivial extension: > > http://phpazurecontrib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=php_azure.dll > > so even if we tell Craig not to put the Azure thing in the install > section, he can simply submit documentation for the extension and put > his Azure install blurb alongside his extension installation docs and
We only document "pecl installable" extensions (some cases exist where the ext author doesn't want the docs on php.net though). I do believe it is important for the docs to not document everything out there. > everyone would be happy. However, if we take an honest look at this > rather arbitrary restriction of only allowing extensions to have landing > pages in the docs, it is exactly that, rather arbitrary. I don't know what this means. Each extension is considered as its own and complete book. The mysqlnd docs for example utilize that fact very well and provide all sorts of info. > I think a better restriction is whether a topic is of general interest > to PHP users. And here I think documenting how to install and use PHP > with the various cloud services is something that is genuinely > interesting to many users. As for 'installing in the cloud'.. Sure. We could treat it as just another platform we can install PHP on, and document accordingly. However. Don't all these services use their own patched PHP? - By documenting "apt-get install php" and such things we are effectively officially recommending people to not run vanilla php, but whatever the distros decide what PHP is... -Hannes
