Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pecl.dev
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36419 php.pecl.dev:5267
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.198.186 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=kl0rMeyCNO8NA++hOMdtFJdSfuLkBr6k3LFqIT6a646i+7zd0sMBJDilGutCO4eDLuwqwP4lhnja0IAi9QW/hFC44P3NZzS1q89s6hHJPfWL53djrmc2DhWa0livIO4auSfJoa21CBbxzbv+F6RNRAw2vc9azxV7HN1geulrJ9Q=
Message-ID: <fe05d1540803240425u57bd967evb4ecd93866a45a20@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:25:56 +0100
To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>, pecl-dev@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <00dc01c88c90$c34c5cc0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <00dc01c88c90$c34c5cc0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox>
Subject: Re: [PECL-DEV] About that PECL versioning thing
From: pierre.php@gmail.com ("Pierre Joye")

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Steph Fox <steph@zend.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>  Since I'm still awake at 3am...
>
>  Aside from Pierre's arguments in favour of using package.xml to set the
>  extension version (which 3 PECL extensions - two of them Pierre's - do at
>  present), does anyone have any objection to the proposal at
>  http://wiki.php.net/rfc/peclversioning?

I'm not in favour of using package.xml to set the version. I'm in
favour of allowing package.xml usage.

Now, why cross posting, adding a random set of the pecl-dev
discussions as comments in  the wiki? And the rules about what means a
version increment is missing.

The wiki is a publication media, the lists are the discussion
media.pecl-dev in this case is the right list.

As far as I remember, php-src did not want to have per extension
versions. However, It is fine to add an information about its version
to help the users to know if the pecl releases is newer than the
bundled version. Can we please keep the discussions in on list? It is
already hard enough to follow everything.

>  I discovered tonight that I have full PECL karma, so the secondary question
>  is: does anyone have any objection to my making all (or most... I'd leave
>  the package.xml ones for now) PECL modules fit this versioning model?

Many extensions use branches, I would go with a patch posted to
pecl-dev and let the respective maintainers apply it to the active
branches.  (zip has two branches + php-src).

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org