On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Hannes Magnusson <hannes.magnus...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:58, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: >> hi, >> >> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Hannes Magnusson >> <hannes.magnus...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I suppose the definition of a 'PECL extension' if if its packaged and >>> released on pecl.php.net (like xdebug for example). >>> But we do have the problem though of not having access to the code if >>> its not in PHP SVN, and therefore we cannot do anything when problems >>> occur - and I think for that reason we cannot have the docs in the PHP >>> manual (just like xdebug) :| >> >> Why do you need to access the code? You can always report a bug if necessary. > > History tells us different. > We cannot even reach many of the people who have code in our SVN - but > we do have the possibility of fixing issues ourself because we have > access to it. > > Also keep in mind that PECL extensions are often updated when the API > in PHP changes drastically, and various people help out making sure > they build on newer PHP versions. We cannot do that with extensions > hosted outside of PHP SVN. > > We have never published docs from extensions not within our control in > the passed, and doing that now will create a precedence for all the > random extensions in the world wanting the same. > We simply cannot do that.
Very different topics are mixed in your reply. We never forced (and we decided to) to use php.net's repository. You said that docs have issues when the code is not in php.net's repo, but I don't see why in your reply Patches can always be sent via the bug tracker. However I have more issues with extensions like xdebug when they use nothing but the web site to release their code. They should just create their own channel and that's it. What prevents you to publish the docs for a doc when the code for the extension is not in php.net's repository? Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
