Re: Re: About that PECL versioning thing

Steph Fox wrote: > Hello Pierre, > >>> Aside from Pierre's arguments in favour of using package.xml to set the >>> extension version (which 3 PECL extensions - two of them Pierre's - >>> do at >>> present), does anyone have any objection to the proposal at >>> http://wiki.php.net/rfc/peclversioning? >> >> I'm not in favour of using package.xml to set the version. I'm in >> favour of allowing package.xml usage. > > Nobody's attempting to prevent package.xml usage, least of all me! I > actually want to extend package.xml to give more information (QA > related) so that people have more of a clue about what they're dealing > with. E.g. code coverage %, maintenance status, whether the package is > of general/special interest (this last mostly for hosting companies) and > some kind of grading system. But this is all open to discussion and > probably won't happen for a long while. This kind of meta-data doesn't belong in a package.xml, but it would make perfect sense to host it through REST on pecl.php.net. Don't forget, package.xml is used by external channels as well, and they have completely different requirements. package.xml is intended to be used by the pear installer to install packages and provide essential metadata only. Greg