Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pdo
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35101 php.pdo:89
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 13:50:24 +0100
Reply-To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
Message-ID: <24733767.20080202135024@marcus-boerger.de>
To: Wez Furlong <wez.furlong@messagesystems.com>
CC: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>, pdo@lists.php.net, internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <07969D40-134A-41CE-ABEE-80C0BB9742A0@messagesystems.com>
References: <37388396.20080201212653@marcus-boerger.de> <D8C84D73-1393-4D63-8B04-E1F784CB05E9@messagesystems.com> <047101c8654b$11c7abb0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <07969D40-134A-41CE-ABEE-80C0BB9742A0@messagesystems.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PDO] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2
From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger)

Hello Wez,

  keeping the discussion on this list is a major mistake. And it is actually
the reason why everyone outside this list is against it. And whether you
read blogs or not does not interest anybody at all - unless you are going to
comment on every single blog that mentions PHP and CLA. So far PHP is open
source! Respect this please!! Open means open!!!

I am crossposting to internals again. People should know what is going on.
Otherwise we could simply sign NDAs and be done.

marcus

Saturday, February 2, 2008, 6:36:17 AM, you wrote:

> On Feb 1, 2008, at 10:24 PM, Steph Fox wrote:

>> Wez,
>>
>> The only difference between my initial proposal, the one Ben Ramsey  
>> posted and this one from Marcus is that they're getting more  
>> complex, *without anyone actually discussing anything at all*.

> On the contrary, there's been plenty of discussion going on.  Despite  
> my request that we keep the discussion on this list, people have been  
> talking to each other in real life, on the phone, talking on IRC, IM,  
> posting thoughts and comments to blogs and so forth.  Some comments  
> positive, some negative, but discussion nonetheless.

> I've been making an effort to read the various blog entries, even  
> those in foreign languages (thanks to a combination of blog searching  
> tools and google translation tools) and keep an eye on IRC when I have  
> a spare minute or two.


>> ... He had a response from Jay, who said this had already been  
>> discussed. According to him,
>>
>> "There was some dissent among members about the core and the spec/ 
>> API docs being non-CLA'd which is why the proposal is currently the  
>> way it is.  I know that various legal teams had concerns about PDO  
>> core not being under CLA, but if a case is made in the community for  
>> this, perhaps minds may change."
>>
>> Now you're saying there's no problem with this approach? Where's the  
>> real discussion going on?

> No, I didn't say that there's no problem, I said that this sounds  
> reasonable.

> For example, a problem with this general solution is still that  
> database experts from multiple sources would not be able to directly  
> co-operate on the PDO core.  However, it sounds to me like a  
> reasonable (though sub-optimal, from a technical and productivity  
> point of view) compromise to be able to accept feedback and  
> suggestions and have those gated through the PDO core maintainers.

> That's just my opinion; I certainly don't speak for anyone else.

>> It's not a bad thing per se to separate PECL and PHP, but it does  
>> beg the question of how to approach distributions/snaps, which is  
>> AFAICS the only reason anything not essential to PHP itself is in  
>> the core in the first place. Nobody's sat down and worked it through  
>> properly, despite Lukas' repeated requests.

> One reason that no one has discussed that is because it is not  
> directly related to the question of PDO and how to best get the  
> vendors involved.  Once we've figured that out, we can iron out the  
> details of the implementation.

>> I think if we did this it would have to be as part of a broader  
>> approach, with a full re-evaluation of the PHP/PECL relationship,  
>> some hard thinking about distribution mechanisms for PECL, and some  
>> serious decisions about setup recommendations. It's really not the  
>> quick fix it appears to be... and making it so without putting that  
>> effort into it would hit the PHP userbase harder than anyone else.

> And that's well beyond the scope of PDO.  Remember, one of the  
> concerns raised by the community was that this business would  
> interfere with the rest of PHP; the suggestions we've made so far have  
> been intentionally very focused to avoid getting into that.

> Again; first let's see if we can find an acceptable way to take their  
> contributions before moving on to those finer points.

>> BTW I'm still waiting to hear about the other alternatives that were  
>> discussed behind our backs, and the objections against them... and I  
>> say 'behind our backs' simply because nobody seems to want to tell us!

> We talked about whether the various vendors could work on various  
> combinations of pieces of the code if they were or were not CLA'd.   
> I'm sure you don't really need me to list the various combinations of  
> CLA, not CLA, in PHP, in PECL, outside of PHP, and hosted individually  
> by the vendors.  It was not a very exciting discussion.

> The main realization was that the vendors could not co-operate with  
> each other on code without a CLA in place, and that some of them would  
> not be able to co-operate with the community without a CLA in place.

> --Wez.




Best regards,
 Marcus