Re: Re: PhD using Composer - proof of concept and a few questions

Hi W dniu 10.12.2016 o 12:25, Peter Cowburn pisze:

On 10 December 2016 at 01:57, Maciej Sobaczewski <sobak@php.net <mailto:sobak@php.net>> wrote:

    And yet I forgot about one more usage of PhD in our
    infrastructure... edit.php.net <http://edit.php.net>.

    Yannick, do you know its server is capable of running Composer (PHP
    5.3.2+)? Do you see any possible problems in such change?

It looks like edit.php.net <http://edit.php.net> is on 5.3.10.

Great! So it's only rsync box which has unknown PHP version. I highly doubt it runs on PHP below 5.3.2 though. Composer's README mentions that exact requirement is:

PHP 5.3.2 or above (at least 5.3.4 recommended to avoid potential bugs)

euk2 runs PHP 5.3.3 so I'll need to test if it actually works smoothly. (actually, I think it deserves an update anyway, as it runs so many things, but it's unrelated to the topic).

<snip>

        3) Assuming that we want such change. Under whose account should
        it be
        kept on Packagist. There is one named "php" but I don't think it
        belogs
        to any of us. Maybe new account like "phpnet" or "phpdotnet". Or
        maybe
        Hannes would like to have it assigned, as its main creator?

I spoke to Jordi Boggiano from composer/packagist, who said that he'll be happy to give us access (to the "php" vendor name). He just needs a repository URL (our github mirror) and a packagist.org <http://packagist.org> username to link the package with (I can volunteer mine, just to get things moving).

So that's another great news. Repository URL will be of course http://github.com/php/phd but I don't think we can submit it now, when it doesn't contain composer.json yet. Even after testing and code review we'll need to change configuration on each machine that's using PhD from git to include "composer install" (it would now fail on pull due to the lack of an autoloader), before we can merge my changes. I'm willing to discuss migration path, but I'm not sure if it's the right time and thread - there's still some work left to do.

He also seemed open to talking to the owners of the existing packages with a view to getting them to change their vendor name; if exclusive use of the "php" vendor name is a thing that we would want to happen.

I don't have any particular opinion on that matter. There are more competent people than me.

        4) Any other problems I'm not aware of?

        5) Any implementation suggestions/concerns? I would happily  address
        them. Just please be aware that it's only a proof of concept at
        the moment.

        I'm hoping for a fruitfull discussion. Constructive criticism is
        always
        welcome, as well.

        Cheers!
        Maciej.