Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pdo Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35074 php.pdo:68 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62921 invoked by uid 1010); 1 Feb 2008 21:12:02 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 62900 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2008 21:12:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Feb 2008 21:12:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.198.191 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.198.191 rv-out-0910.google.com Received: from [209.85.198.191] ([209.85.198.191:47714] helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 61/11-31091-12B83A74 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:12:01 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k15so830898rvb.23 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:11:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=wUEJNF6Ngq5NrOcaksGt2SsW+OKCkEXkd0MuXeq/bE8=; b=JkXE+lrglpEMsak36UsRuGY9A/AIJP/XkSB6pQrAYH4c/uD32dFvRqcEbypCUzMn7HTUbgIveaY9kain04Lrf9PqE47Mrp+qk9EtMC3XO8wrQ57eKelvaqVLK+jqKJBTXIxEzSLyvxW3UNB1WlSWbonsDfcrZRRcEzpNiRquIUI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=AmOQV9cEoIrYl7Cv2ryqVX5d5qQV7VL7LSRWnqQ8X8f02/EY2oAsTdFOK9Cct8EWFoyS4eS4NXy5BZfyqRUGmfa0RhngYpp1UdQhxotWcNa/VdULcdLaFBjSdFB7c9k9DImnITWiy7DAjLZOQizWGlIWoT+V01YHgJzqKmxDYmg= Received: by 10.140.132.8 with SMTP id f8mr2824100rvd.122.1201900314861; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:11:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.151.21 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:11:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 22:11:54 +0100 To: "Marcus Boerger" Cc: pdo@lists.php.net, "PHP Internals" In-Reply-To: <37388396.20080201212653@marcus-boerger.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <37388396.20080201212653@marcus-boerger.de> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2 From: pierre.php@gmail.com ("Pierre Joye") Hi, Globally -1. I'm against any CLA in php.net. It was a mistake in the first place to accept restricted modules. There is many repositories out there, and the companies that need a CLA also have the resources to create their own PECL channels. But they may not have the fantastic advantages brought by being in php.net, like QA, visibility, etc. Secondly it is not correct to mix the topics. PDO will have a future, no matter if we accept a CLA or not. The same companies (I would like to say, the company) will participate anyway. Their customers need it. I think this quote fits well in this thread: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org