On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
