On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote:
> Sure, you can still make docs CC-licensed for a very closed extension > though. > >> > So restricting it to PECL extensions that are installable through >> > our pecl channel makes sense. (Because we demand certain licenses >> > for those). >> >> That's what we do already (and why mongo and xdebug are fine). What >> Hannes seems to ask is that the code must be in svn.php.net and only >> pecl's tracker can be used. >> >> The latter is something I can imagine but as a complement to other >> trackers (like for mysql for example). For the code repository, I can >> imagine to restrict to svn.php.net, github and bitbucket. That should >> give enough options and we can nicely integrate each of these repos >> with our infrastructure (commits mail and tracker included). > > Actually, I don't see why you want to restrict where the code is; as > long as it is publically available (and not just a code dump once in a > while). I don't want to. Docs seem to be willing to have such restrictions. > I would not be in favour of integrating other repositories either. I am in favor of nice integration to make the pecl platform a better place to host PHP extensions. The current situation is very obvious and clear, people does not like pecl because we don't provide what they need. I don't care about VCS related discussions but it is a good thing to provide alternative to SVN. github and bitbuckets are the leading tools of choice. And both github and bitbucket allow clean integration in any external tools (like pecl.php.net, trackers, snaps, builds, etc.). That's definitively something I'm willing to do. It is also not about good/choosen extensions but about being sure that we are attractive to new or existing developers. Right now we are not. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
