On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 12:38, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>
> > What does PEAR's stability on windows 32 systems have anything to do
> > with it? This is an internal change. Meaning, as an end-user, you
> > won't see any change. The separation to PECL is purely a release
> > management thing.
> >
> > The move to PECL has been agreed upon multiple times. We can't have the
> > release manager coordinating all these different extensions at release
> > time. Therefore, we decide which extensions to bundle (all of current
> > cvs + a few PECL extensions, for example), and the release manager
> > bundles the last stable release. You also avoid the problem where
> > people can't commit alpha features to their extension, for fear a
> > release might be made of them (or a release is made of these alpha
> > features, which has happened more than once).
>
> You seem to contradict yourself in the two paragraphs above. We are not
> talking about unbundling anything and yet at the same time the release
> master decides what extensions to bundle. This can only mean that the
> future releases of PHP will contain extensions that recieve less testing
> than the ones we have in the release today. Additionally I think that
> having different extension set for each release can only bring confussion.
>
Err. The release manager does:
php5]$ ./bundle-release
Which bundles the stable version of all the extensions we decide belong
in php5. Whether this list grows our shrinks would require group
concensus, and is not the issue here.
Would you prefer bundling code that is a work in progress? Currently,
if something goes into cvs, and the author doesn't have time to fix it
before a release, that's what goes into the release. No matter if it
segfaults, has buffer overruns, leaks, or doesn't compile (although the
latter isn't that common). With the new system, the developer can
release a stable version of that extension, one that will be bundled,
and go through the "QA" process. And maintain their cvs version as a
development version of product.
> > Win32 is a non-issue. We're not talking about debundling anything from
> > a release at this point. As for QA, I suggest you look at the archives,
> > its been discussed multiple times (or at least, I've had this
> > conversation multiple times. :)
>
> I have been a part of this debate for a long time too and I don't remember
> that a definitive agreement has been reached beyond a "nice to have in the
> future" sort of statement. This move will also IMO introduce more
> complexity into already very complex release process.
>
Right. Well, that's a concensus. Everybody agreed that this is the
direction we should go in. The point of this is to remove that
complexity.
> And Win32 is an issue since there is currently no tool that allows
> installation of PECL-only binarries. To sum it all up: nice idea but its
> implementation at the present time would create more trouble than its
> worth it.
>
On win32, nobody would have to worry about PECL. As is the situation
today, they would just take the source package that the release manager
made, and make a win32 build from it. The cvs version of php5 (for
testing) would remain the same.
-Sterling
--
"People can have the Model T in any colour -- so long as it's black."
- Henry Ford
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
