Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pdo
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35140 php.pdo:112
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pooteeweet.org from 85.10.196.195 cause and error)
To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <00b301c86692$0f065230$c6fc1f3e@foxbox>
References: <00ce01c865c2$22f23aa0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <510220265.20080202204406@marcus-boerger.de> <019c01c865d5$2ebbacf0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <fe05d1540802021233n14dca604s413a750b9a52d0a7@mail.gmail.com> <155955105.20080203001830@marcus-boerger.de> <fe05d1540802021551l704ac0d9k435772b69da50295@mail.gmail.com> <1497821512.20080203014611@marcus-boerger.de> <47A575A9.7060903@fischer.name> <304490699.20080203115352@marcus-boerger.de> <fe05d1540802030547p46a53a68hb0c5e79573d025ae@mail.gmail.com> <00b301c86692$0f065230$c6fc1f3e@foxbox>
Message-ID: <0F4513B3-129A-406E-80BA-3E6B37175E33@pooteeweet.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 19:52:21 +0100
Cc: "Pierre Joye" <pierre.php@gmail.com>,
 "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>,
 "Markus Fischer" <markus@fischer.name>,
  <pdo@lists.php.net>,
 "internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached,
	score=0.094, required 6, AWL -0.01, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10)
X-backendmedia-com-MailScanner-From: mls@pooteeweet.org
X-Spam-Status: No
Subject: Re: [PDO] Re: An Idea for PDO 2
From: mls@pooteeweet.org (Lukas Kahwe Smith)


On 03.02.2008, at 19:24, Steph Fox wrote:

>> I see no point to discuss solutions for some unknown entities willing
>> to contribute  when they do not consider to introduce themselves.  
>> When
>> they don't explain clearly why we should do the move and what will be
>> the actual gains for us (read: for "us" not for them). Until a step  
>> in
>> this/our direction is not done, I will not see a point to think about
>> solutions as it means they don't really care about us but Zend and
>> associates (as they seem to communicate only with them as far as I
>> understand).
>
> Pierre has a point here. So far we've heard from: Wez, Andi and Jay.  
> (We've also heard from Dan, Adam and David, but none of them have  
> declared an interest.)

Right .. for example we have not yet heard from anyone from Microsoft ..

> Now, PECL has a couple of CLA'd modules already. I don't like them  
> being there, and you have stated your own opinion loud and clear. I  
> think we should be looking for some way to separate out CLA'd PECL  
> modules to elsewhere but leave the PECL structure in place for those  
> modules. It's important to offer at least that much, because as long  
> as the licensing is sound, CLA'd or not CLA'd doesn't impact end  
> users - just contributors.

Well thanks to a separate PEAR channel, we have all the infrastructure  
easily setup to have a different place for users to pick up the code.  
Or are you more concerned about the CVS, than the distribution of the  
packages?

> How about this one: there's PECLA (I like my babies), where CLA'd  
> development takes place. pecla/module commit info goes to the pecl- 
> cvs list, as with pecl/module commit info. On release, a PECLA  
> module is no longer under CLA. It's copied to PECL, becomes a  
> standard PECL module and is subject to all the normal PECL ins-and- 
> out. PECLA development is effectively read-only, but _all_ of PECL  
> development is open access. CLA'd modules currently in PECL would be  
> moved to PECLA.

Why copy to PECL in this case? Shouldnt it just be part of the PHP  
distribution QA process?

>
regards,
Lukas