Re: [PDO] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PDO] Re: [PHP-DEV] Fw: [PDO] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2
| From: | Marcus Boerger | Date: | Sat, 02 Feb 2008 23:18:30 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [PDO] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PDO] Re: [PHP-DEV] Fw: [PDO] [RFC] An Idea for PDO 2 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.internals php.pdo |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pdo+get-103@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello Pierre,
amen!, You're noted as no. But other people see a reason and continue to
discuss *please* without you. We will take your vote in as no when it comes
to voting if ever. If you are interested in explanations then I suggest you
read all mails and blogs again until you understand the reason why some
peole need a CLA.
marcus
Saturday, February 2, 2008, 9:33:13 PM, you wrote:
> Hi,
> On Feb 2, 2008 8:52 PM, Steph Fox <steph@zend.com> wrote:
>> > all we need is to extend the PECL database with a license type field and
>> > a
>> > CLA flag. Nothing else is required at that end. But we should still move
>> > as
>> > much from php-src/ext to pecl as we can.
> There is no place for CLA in pecl either. I still see zero reason to
> tolerate CLA in pecl.php.net or anywhere else.
>> I was just trying to find a way that would be acceptable to php.net and also
>> would mean PDO2 driver development doesn't have to wait on PECL process
>> decisions, but actually my off-list feedback says even a PECLA module
>> wouldn't be an acceptable option for some.
> It is not OK for me (to list one). The last attempt to create this
> exact solution (flag in pecl with automatic download of pdf to sign
> etc.) was sadly a failure. As it begins well, the communication
> between the company and us was not good at all and it was not possible
> to get answers in a reasonable time or simply no answer at all. Wez
> was also involved and was the initial contact between the company and
> php.
> --
> Pierre
> http://blog.thepimp.net |
> http://www.libgd.org
Best regards,
Marcus