Home > Archive > PHP PEAR Questions and Answers > March 2005 > Re: [PEAR-QA] Net_URL
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: [PEAR-QA] Net_URL
|
|
| Klaus Guenther 2005-03-07, 3:59 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 3/7/2005 5:22 AM, Helgi Žormar spake the following words:
> I propose that Richard move the PHP5 code into Net_URL2 dir in CVS
> or at least branch so people can choose either one on checkout
This is the appropriate and necessary procedure in the rules.
Currently, it must be moved to Net_URL2 to prevent borked
installations. Sorry, Richard, but those are the rules.
> P.S. Richard it would be nice if you could then backport those 3x
> bugfixes you made back to the 1.x code, seem to be easy fixers,
> release another 1.x release and do one of the following
>
> 1) maintain both things 2) Find a replacement maintainer for the
> 1.x branch 3) Deprecate 1.x and only maintain 2.x
>
> Those are only ideas/pointers for you but it would be nice to see
> this happen :-)
Yep, very good advice :)
Klaus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCLEuRpSl7k8JGkr4RArJfAJ450JjPmPz6
JS0K0iT1GDJinpmUyACfYLHv
97kzap19EtvjKbFcgB8zQio=
=sowF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Richard Heyes 2005-03-07, 3:59 pm |
| Klaus Guenther wrote:
> On 3/7/2005 5:22 AM, Helgi Žormar spake the following words:
>
>
>
>
> This is the appropriate and necessary procedure in the rules.
> Currently, it must be moved to Net_URL2 to prevent borked
> installations. Sorry, Richard, but those are the rules.
Well your rules are really quite ridiculous. Adding version numbers into
names of classes/packages is simply absurd. I'm not fudging my code to
cater to this.
[color=darkred]
Here's a better plan: Pear-qa finds a new maintainer for 1.x, and I
maintain the latest version on my own site, something made somewhat
easier with the forthcoming channels feature.
--
Richard Heyes
| |
| Richard Heyes 2005-03-07, 3:59 pm |
| Helgi Žormar wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 14:12, Richard Heyes wrote:
>
>
>
> *Sigh*
> And how in gods name would anyone then maintain the 1.x code if you
> overwrite it in CVS or just access it in general ...
> Branches were made for a purpose :-)
I've got nothing against branching. In fact I suggested making a PHP5
branch when I first converted Net_URL to PHP5 only. I was of course,
overruled and had my release deleted from the website (which is why the
latest CVS is not the latest release).
--
Richard Heyes
| |
| Klaus Guenther 2005-03-07, 3:59 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 3/7/2005 3:12 PM, Richard Heyes spake the following words:
> Klaus Guenther wrote:
>
>
> Well your rules are really quite ridiculous. Adding version numbers
> into names of classes/packages is simply absurd. I'm not fudging
> my code to cater to this.
Iirc, we had a conversation on this a while back on IRC and you
indicated this as position. By the way, this is a rule that was
created by the PEAR Group (http://pear.php.net/group/), not by the QA
people. At that time I also stated that this is a bit difficult and
that I'd prefer being able to package php4 and php5 versions without
creating a new package - provided the API didn't change (which you
indicated was not the case). It's not my rules, it's PEAR's rules -
and will remain such until a better solution can be found.
The issues is that we don't want people who have php4 to upgrade and
get a notification that they can't install the upgrade - and bugfixes
would also be prevented. Ideally, we'd be able to indicate per release
what versions of php are compatible and automatically only offer
compatible versions for download in the PEAr installer. There's no
reason why this should be a problem - but it takes a whole lot of work
to implement.
As for your suggestion that PEAR finds a new maintainer, I don't think
that's necessary - if you want, you can always mark the php4 version
depreciated and just continue work on the php5 version. Yes, the
versioning difference is a major pain, but it really doesn't make much
of a difference in real life - when you create an application, you
usually bundle the packages/classes necessary for it to run. If not,
you run a serious risk that people will install a version with an
incompatible API. Or maybe they don't have/don't want to have PEAR on
their system. And you probably won't change the package you are using
unless you rewrite the whole thing. In which case, a simple
s/Net_URL/Net_URL2/g will fix most of your problems. I fail to see a
major problem, though I was annoyed at having to change my package
name, too.
Hope this helps,
Klaus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCLG3EpSl7k8JGkr4RAm1DAJ9SdelCeVQJ
DlX0dGqgavUebHTFKACgiTby
NntH8WZGjl6x+Cv1uwhXZzY=
=F9k2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Richard Heyes 2005-03-07, 3:59 pm |
| Helgi Žormar wrote:
> No I meant in CVS branches really, sorry about that. =)
> I also voiced while back to allow for 2x branches on the package level,
> PHP4 and PHP5 only branch but well I got shot down at the time :-)
> Package2 and etc was chosen over that, so it goes I guess.
I also meant CVS branches. Using CVS branches it would be possible to
maintain two different versions, 1 for PHP4 and 1 for PHP5. Then simply
using package versions 1.x and 2.x you could have two separate release
cycles, handled at the client level by the installer and dependencies.
--
Richard Heyes
|
|
|
|
|