On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 15:43 +0200, Hannes Magnusson wrote: > That is totally true - and it is awesome that you have written the > English docs - but did you know the docs have been translated to > French? The Japanese version is even under development.. > > And whenever we make template changes, or just want to improve the > markup, "you" get those for free. > When people submit doc bug reports they expect the doc team to be able > to solve it. > I am not willing to go hunting around for random support forums and > search for the location of the source to verify the report, and fix > it. > > Things need to be under php.net if you want to use the doc > infrastructure. You do have "Documentation" link on the PECL package > website, which can point to external docs if you don't want it under > php.net
In a way this applies to the source as well. Having the master repository on php.net infrastructure enables the PHP developers at large to apply fixes to these extensions (like I did in http://news.php.net/php.pecl.cvs/13992 for instance, which even hit mongo) Additionally code on svn.php.net gets (some) review by other PECL contributors who can spot PHP-related mistakes. This in, my opinion, makes a key selling point for PECL at large.(*) On the other hand I can understand the interest in moving to a better (subjective) version control system and use a workflow offered by one of these tools. So in the end this comes down to: - Do we want PECL to be a place for "approved" "good" extensions or - Do we want PECL to be a place for "all" PHP extensions? johannes (*) Looking at this from the code perspective it kind of reminds me on the CLA discussions, they used our SVN server but didn't allow us to commit by our rules ...
