an HTML_Template_IT[X] fork is available
| From: | Bertrand Mansion | Date: | Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:16:48 +0000 |
| Subject: | an HTML_Template_IT[X] fork is available | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-13120@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
le 11/02/03 17:56, Markus Wolff à wolff@21st.de a écrit :
> Another thing: Copyright. Please correct me if I´m wrong here (I´m not
> that much into legalese), but I´ve always had the impression that if
> someone writes code and publishes it under a public license, he
> technically still owns the copyright (which gives him the possibilty
> to approve/disapprove changes and/or change the license if he wants -
> something that has happened before in other projects). So technically,
> no one else but the initial "inventor" will ever be able to "force"
> anything to go into the _original_ project.
Ulf Wendel wrote ITX in the first place, not PA. You can look at the CVS
history to get more info on this. I don't think the role of PA is lead
developer but rather maintainer. There is no copyright issue here.
> Okay, enough of that. Every coin has two sides, and I also think that
> Pierre-Alain _might_ have judged too quickly. As Christian has pointed
> out in the meantime, while there are some disadvantages in the new
> version, there also are some cool additions in there.
> Why reject additions that make sense just because some features don´t?
That's my position too. I am just angry it's the second time Alexey comes
with a version and is rejected by PA. He reworked everything he made the
first time taking our comments into consideration.
> A possible solution could be the introduction of a factory method in
> IT[X] - you could then choose if you want the cached version or not.
It's an optional feature. And we are not talking about caching a page, we
are talking about caching a page variables into a serialized state. Just
like session variables are stored in the file system.
> Still, Pierre-Alain as lead developer, project manager, copyright
> owner or however you wish to call his position, should have the final
> word on this one - but it should be made clear for what reasons the
> changes are not accepted, a simple "no" is not enough IMHO.
I agree and I would like to see an example of when the new version kills BC
as it is stated in a previous mail. My own tests didn't show any problems
but they are probably not complete.
Thanks,
Bertrand Mansion
Mamasam