PHP PEAR Questions and Answers - Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: cvs: pear(MAINT_1_1) /Net

Author

Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: cvs: pear(MAINT_1_1) /Net_NNTP package.xml

Sebastian Nohn

2005-12-02, 8:55 pm

Greg Beaver wrote:
> Heino H. Gehlsen wrote:
>
>
>
> This HAS to stop Heino, you can't maintain 3 copies of the same damn
> program in PEAR.
>
> For the uninitiated, version 1.0.x is stable, version 1.1.x is beta, and
> version 1.2.x is alpha.
>
> Stop being such a male and commit to an API. Maintaining duplicate
> packages in PEAR is expressly forbidden, and certainly maintaining 3 of
> the same package using branches and preferred_state is just loopy.

Then this rule should be adjusted in my eyes. It makes full sense to me
likt it makes sense having PHPUnit and PHPUnit2.

Why not have a stable 1.0.x and a stable 1.1.x at the same time? Makes
absolutely sense in terms of configuration management.

I and certainly a lot more people would sleep a lot better if we had
that even for PHP itself.

Having a PHP 5.0.x and PHP 5.1.x running parallel (like we still have
PHP 4.4.x, which is 4.3.x + BC-breaking bugfix introduced in 4.4.0
requiring the step from 4.3.11 to 4.4.0) would make life much easier for
a reasonable number of developers, qa engineers and IT managers.

Well. We don't have that and that's OK, that's non-company backed open
source and I know only a handful of non-company backed OSS that have
config management processes at all.

What I want to say: If someone is willing to do the work of maintaining
different stable trees of the same software, why would you want to stop
him from that? Heino should be encouraged to continue his work and
hopefully other OSS developers adopt that.

That's nothing new and special, most Linux distributors do it in some
way: Regualary a release "Wackelwurm Linux 3.0" is fixed to
"Somesoftware 1.3". Even when "Somesoftware 1.3" is stopped being
maintained and "Somesoftware"-Developers only fix bugs in "Somesoftware
1.4", Linux distributors backport these fixes in "Somesoftware 1.3".

Everyone for himself of course. Would be possible to have those
developers capacities focused on keeping "Somesoftware 1.3" maintained
as long as possible, would'nt that be great?

I think yes, so my request is here to adjust/clarify that rule to allow
multiple (even stable!) versions of the same package in PEAR.

The PEAR installer needs to be able to distinguish between bugfix-,
feature- and incompatibility-releases to make that usable but that
should be possible.

Sebastian

Greg Beaver

2005-12-02, 8:55 pm

Sebastian Nohn wrote:

>Greg Beaver wrote:
>
>
>
>Then this rule should be adjusted in my eyes. It makes full sense to me
>likt it makes sense having PHPUnit and PHPUnit2.
>
>Why not have a stable 1.0.x and a stable 1.1.x at the same time? Makes
>absolutely sense in terms of configuration management.
>
>
It makes absolutely *no* sense because we do not allow BC breakage in a
minor release, which apparently does not apply to PHP itself. Version
1.1 of a package should do everything version 1.0 does, unless there is
a critical bug such as a security vulnerability that can only be fixed
by breaking backwards compatibility with the API.

>What I want to say: If someone is willing to do the work of maintaining
>different stable trees of the same software, why would you want to stop
>him from that? Heino should be encouraged to continue his work and
>hopefully other OSS developers adopt that.
>
>
The problem is not that Heino is maintaining different branches, it is
that he is maintaining a "stable" branch, a "beta" branch, and an
"alpha" branch. The labels are supposed to apply to code stability and
API firmness. In other words, "alpha" means the API may change at any
moment, "beta" means the code is almost judged to be stable and "stable"
means the code should work, and is fully documented, and can be depended
on in the most rigorous production environment.

>The PEAR installer needs to be able to distinguish between bugfix-,
>feature- and incompatibility-releases to make that usable but that
>should be possible.
>
This is already possible, and the recommended way is quite clear.
PHPUnit2 is an incompatibility release of PHPUnit. If Heino wishes to
have 3 versions of Net_NNTP, they should be Net_NNTP, Net_NNTP2 and
Net_NNTP3.

This is straightforward, and not confusing. Using stability to do
branches is completely unacceptable as it perverts the meaning of the
system and will only confuse users.

Greg

Arnaud Limbourg

2005-12-02, 8:55 pm

Heino H. Gehlsen wrote:
> Hi Greg, and Sebastian,
>
> First of all I’d like make it clear that I’ve been more or less out of
> office when it comes to Net_NNTP for at least a year, and that I am
> currently preparing the package for a possible future status as
> unmentioned!
>
> For quite some time I’ve been unhappy with the progress within the PEAR
> channel – the installer etc. not included – and I’m not certain if I want
> to participate any longer. At the moment I have some spare time, and I
> thought I might finish my current work here so that I can leave at will
> any time.

Care to go deeper in what you think should be improved. Just leaving the
project will not make it any better.

> From my point of view the upcoming and for some reason apparently feared
> Zend PHP Framework is a result of the failures in PEAR. PEAR is now just
> one among many code directories of sometimes doubtful quality…

Arnaud.

Greg Beaver

2005-12-02, 8:55 pm

Heino,

In this world of limited time, this is one of the most thoughtful
messages I've read recently. Thank you for the time to write this. I
happen to be one of those people who do not fear competition from Zend
or any other source. If they write stuff that makes it possible for me
to do my work faster and safer, hallelujah. As for problems in PEAR
itself, I think we have the same vision there as well when it comes to
quality. I recently proposed a solution to the glut of legacy packages
in PEAR, and although it has had limited responses, I am hopeful that
the competition that PEAR channels provides will spur a renaissance of
quality (or perhaps I should say a naissance...)

I happen to agree with Arnaud that until we have a critical mass of
developers who

1) think there is room for improvement
2) think there is *hope* for improvement

nothing will ever change. For this reason, I hope you stick around long
enough to see that day come. Incidentally, it was decided implicitly
that PEAR2 will be a rewritten version that supports only PHP 5/6, so
that is an interesting vaporware idea that is coming closer to fruition,
at least as an idea.

Heino H. Gehlsen wrote:

>Greg, honestly I do in fact understand how and why you came to the
>conclusion that I had gone mad. I’ve updated the info on Net_NNTP’s
>package-homepage – the choice of words was properly the most misleading…
>
Thanks for this as well.

Greg

bertrand Gugger

2005-12-03, 3:56 am

Bonjour,
Heino H. Gehlsen wrote:

>Hi Greg, and Sebastian,
>
>First of all I’d like make it clear that I’ve been more or less out of
>office when it comes to Net_NNTP for at least a year, and that I am
>currently preparing the package for a possible future status as
>unmentioned!
>
>For quite some time I’ve been unhappy with the progress within the PEAR
>channel – the installer etc. not included – and I’m not certain if I want
>to participate any longer. At the moment I have some spare time, and I
>thought I might finish my current work here so that I can leave at will
>any time.
>
>Zend PHP Framework is a result of the failures in PEAR. PEAR is now just
>one among many code directories of sometimes doubtful quality…
>
>
So, you want to do it in 3 versions ?
--
toggg

bertrand Gugger

2005-12-03, 6:56 pm

Heino H. Gehlsen wrote:

>Bertrand Gugger wrote:
>
>
>
>Three versions of Net_NNTP or of the PEAR repository?
>
>
You cut off the text.
You criticize pear.
My question was:
"So, you want to do it (critics) in 3 versions ?"

No long flow discuss:

Is it possible to BRANCH pear's cvs ?

a+
--
toggg

Sponsored Links