Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pecl.dev Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36430 php.pecl.dev:5270 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 28384 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2008 14:22:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Mar 2008 14:22:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=greg@chiaraquartet.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=greg@chiaraquartet.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain chiaraquartet.net from 38.99.98.18 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: greg@chiaraquartet.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 38.99.98.18 beast.bluga.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [38.99.98.18] ([38.99.98.18:51643] helo=mail.bluga.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id DD/D4-04656-B19B7E74 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:22:20 -0500 Received: from mail.bluga.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.bluga.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8E7C0FFE0; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:22:16 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.168.0.106] (CPE-76-84-4-101.neb.res.rr.com [76.84.4.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bluga.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C93C0FFD7; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:22:16 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <47E7B922.9080804@chiaraquartet.net> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:22:26 -0500 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steph Fox CC: Pierre Joye , internals , pecl-dev@lists.php.net References: <00dc01c88c90$c34c5cc0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <003701c88db8$915a4410$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> In-Reply-To: <003701c88db8$915a4410$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PECL-DEV] About that PECL versioning thing From: greg@chiaraquartet.net (Gregory Beaver) Steph Fox wrote: > Hello Pierre, > >>> 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. > > Nobody's attempting to prevent package.xml usage, least of all me! I > actually want to extend package.xml to give more information (QA > related) so that people have more of a clue about what they're dealing > with. E.g. code coverage %, maintenance status, whether the package is > of general/special interest (this last mostly for hosting companies) and > some kind of grading system. But this is all open to discussion and > probably won't happen for a long while. This kind of meta-data doesn't belong in a package.xml, but it would make perfect sense to host it through REST on pecl.php.net. Don't forget, package.xml is used by external channels as well, and they have completely different requirements. package.xml is intended to be used by the pear installer to install packages and provide essential metadata only. Greg