On 4 Dec 2002, Stig S. Bakken wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 18:20, Philip Olson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Wez Furlong wrote:
> > > IMO, the manual should include all of the "maintstream" PHP extensions.
> > > The reasoning is that if someone downloads the PHP manual, they expect
> > > to
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 18:20, Philip Olson wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Wez Furlong wrote:
> > IMO, the manual should include all of the "maintstream" PHP extensions.
> > The reasoning is that if someone downloads the PHP manual, they expect
> > to get the PHP manual and not have to hunt around f
> We talkes about this at our March Doc meeting. The problem is that the
> different doc systems mostly started out from the initial "phpdoc"
> repositories system, and developed on their own ways. Reuniting the build
> systems under one umbrella would be quite a hard task, and I don't know who
> c
Well, you raise some points ;)
> Again, IMO, the madness of having no less than 3 different docu systems
> (phpdoc, peardoc and peardoc2) makes very little sense; why not just use
> "one system (tm)" for docs? (let's save some developer brain power for
> more useful things).
We talkes about this
Hi Philip,
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Philip Olson wrote:
> So "mainstream" is defined as which are bundled with the
> PHP4 source, whether it's in PECL or not? Does anyone
> know or have a list of what will go where and when? Is
> the install, configure, and use process different for
> PECL extension
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Wez Furlong wrote:
> IMO, the manual should include all of the "maintstream" PHP extensions.
> The reasoning is that if someone downloads the PHP manual, they expect
> to get the PHP manual and not have to hunt around for docs on extensions
> X, Y, Z.
So "mainstream" is defi
Well, you suggestion makes sense. I wonder about something though. How
different are phpdoc/peardoc/peardoc2 ?
As i said the plan was to move from peardoc to peardoc2. If we move
everything to phpdoc we'll have to port peardoc and peardoc2 to phpdoc, it
will need a lot of work.
There is also a pr
Wez Furlong schrieb:
> o One doc download for the PHP core + bundled extensions
> (which may
> reside in PECL).
> o One doc download for the PEAR classes + non-bundled
> PECL extensions
> o One doc download for extension developers (the streams
> and zend API
> stuff needs a proper home).
> o One
IMO, the manual should include all of the "maintstream" PHP extensions.
The reasoning is that if someone downloads the PHP manual, they expect
to get the PHP manual and not have to hunt around for docs on extensions
X, Y, Z.
Remember that one of our goals is to move most of ext/* into PECL, but
st
ext/db is deprecated by dba since 4.3 (earlier versions of dba are very
different).
I plan on emulating db calls in ext/dba. If this is done we can either
remove db
or move it to pecl (i vote for removing then). The remaining difference
current
difference between the two is that db uses magic qu
> >> The peardoc format will be phased out for peardoc2 which
> >> uses several files, that is one per function, one for constants,
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> It makes sense to document PECL in the pear manual since PECL is
> >> in pear.
> >
> > Well, actually this what I wanted to hear :) I also think
11 matches
Mail list logo
