Re: Moving to PECL

On 8 Jun 2003, Sterling Hughes wrote: > 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. All of that can be solved with proper CVS versioning. We could have two branches, HEAD and STABLE, pretty much as we have today except where new features would be allowed into the STABLE branch after proper testing in the head. Currently PECL has no concept of versioning which would only make this problem even bigger as today we can use CVS tags and branches to deal with it. How could I tell which version of openssl extension was bundled with PHP 5.0.3? > 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. If you move extension into PECL and decide it is not worth bundling with the main release, people would have no option of getting that extension on windows unlike the unix folks who could simply say "pear install sqlite". Edin