Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pdo Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35117 php.pdo:103 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32267 invoked by uid 1010); 2 Feb 2008 23:19:05 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32200 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2008 23:19:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Feb 2008 23:19:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=helly@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=helly@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.94.56 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: helly@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.214.94.56 aixcept.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [85.214.94.56] ([85.214.94.56:49768] helo=h1149922.serverkompetenz.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 13/4B-41947-86AF4A74 for ; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:19:04 -0500 Received: from MBOERGER-ZRH.corp.google.com (202-168.79-83.cust.bluewin.ch [83.79.168.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by h1149922.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549B31B3669; Sun, 3 Feb 2008 00:19:01 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 00:18:30 +0100 Reply-To: Marcus Boerger X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <155955105.20080203001830@marcus-boerger.de> To: "Pierre Joye" CC: pdo@lists.php.net, internals In-Reply-To: References: <00ce01c865c2$22f23aa0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <510220265.20080202204406@marcus-boerger.de> <019c01c865d5$2ebbacf0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PDO] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PDO] Re: [PHP-DEV] Fw: [PDO] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2 From: helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger) 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 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