Newsgroups: php.internals,php.pecl.dev
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36472 php.pecl.dev:5292
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 64.97.136.146 cause and error)
Message-ID: <003801c88e15$76f3dd90$c6fc1f3e@foxbox>
Reply-To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>
To: "Pierre Joye" <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: <pecl-dev@lists.php.net>,
	"internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <00dc01c88c90$c34c5cc0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <003701c88db8$915a4410$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <fe05d1540803240914u1e36be73hd1730d83c719ce3b@mail.gmail.com> <017901c88dd1$39eb43a0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <fe05d1540803241025h5ef7180we0b771af17b4004b@mail.gmail.com> <01cf01c88dd9$b04e99e0$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <fe05d1540803241123y66d99f27u2658609897eb5728@mail.gmail.com> <024c01c88df2$2aadbb90$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <fe05d1540803241449m7fa40e7dvf9f8e66b2e325567@mail.gmail.com> <029a01c88dfb$ec131380$c6fc1f3e@foxbox> <fe05d1540803241707q264b43a9udbdc09c19999d1ac@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:13:40 -0000
Organization: Zend Technologies
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PECL-DEV] About that PECL versioning thing
From: steph@zend.com ("Steph Fox")

Hi Pierre,

>>  > Now I'm a bit confused. What are yout talking about now? PHP snapshots
>>  > or PECL snapshots? releases builds?
>>
>>  You can checkout pecl module branch PHP_5_2 and see all the symlinked
>>  extensions there for PHP_5_2, plus intl...
>
> I know that but that does not tell me what you are talking about now.

OK you lost me completely. You would rather have no version capability in 
PECL beyond the module itself? What's so confusing about 'if you have PECL 
code that is specific to PHP 6 use the PHP_6_0 branch in PECL'?

>>  > I can answer to the rest of your post once I know better what you are
>>  > referring to. I fear that you are making too strong relations between
>>  > pecl's cvs and PHP's cvs.
>>
>>  I think you just haven't stumbled across that co possibility. It doesn't
>>  show up anywhere as an official PECL branch, but it does work.
>
> Again, CVS should be used only for snaphots nothing else. But I don't
> know what you are referring to.

What do you mean, you don't know what I'm referring to? And why do you say 
'Again..'? Do you assume I haven't understood something? It seems more 
likely to me you haven't read before responding. Again.

>>  > As I can understand that one may like to have the same branches, I
>>  > don't want to have to use them. PHP branches do not fit well to pecl
>>  > development, as you noticed already almost all packages can be built
>>  > against all php versions. The goal is to have a stable branch and
>>  > maybe some expiremental branches (they are not really relevant in your
>>  > case, build a dll for each active PHP branch).
>>
>>  I also build from CVS, Pierre. It's useful to me to be able to pull out
>>  PHP-branch-specific PECL modules from time to time.
>
> Yes, but what does that have to do with this RFC (versionning) and the
> build based on releases instead of CVS?

What on earth are you talking about? I wasn't talking about *release* 
versioning, this RFC is for *all* versioning.

You should have the option for PECL development not to affect the existing 
users of your package, or to have different releases for different versions 
of PHP (which some - many - PECL devs will need when we look at PHP 6). If 
you have a PECL module symlinked into PHP 5.3 and PHP 6.0 they will be 
slightly different versions, and the way things are set up now there is no 
way to reflect that difference in the module versioning.

> For the snapshots, I think we can post post pone the discussions and
> continue to use what we have in pecl4win (which uses the same branches
> than PHP).

You obviously haven't looked at the source, because pecl4win doesn't use any 
PECL branches at all.

> More generally, this RFC is about versionning and package states as
> large. Can we try to finish it then you can finally do your manual
> builds at wish. The rest really requires more time and tweaks :)

I think you should stop coming out with superior or derogatory comments and 
blocking my attempts to make minor headway in this mess, and try instead to 
concentrate on helping build a system that has some chance of working. Soon.

- Steph

>
> Cheersm
> -- 
> Pierre
> http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org