Re: Re: IT[X] fork, round 2

From: Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:57:21 +0000
Subject: Re: Re: IT[X] fork, round 2
References: 1 2  Groups: php.pear.dev 
Request: Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-13173@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message
12 Февраль 2003 13:40, Christian Dickmann написал: > > 2) I cannot prove that my sources are _always_ BC, it is ridiculous > > (especially when we have neither specification nor regression tests). > > Yeah, and because of this Dilemma, i think, we can't accept > your work as a replacement ;-( Well, I have a better proposal: instead of wasting time on extracting single patches from my fork (it was forked > 1 year ago, when the IT's original author even did occasional commits) I'd rather write a test suite for IT[X]. And after that it will be quite simple to check whether both solutions conform to it. > > > 3) <!-- INCLUDE --> is in my fork now. Yet it does not mix with caching, > > just like callback functions. This is still somewhat a hack. > > It _can_ be redone in a much cleaner way that will allow caching of > > INCLUDE'd files as well, but this will take a non-insignificant amount > > of time to do. > > Christian, can you please test my classes now? > > I would go for the clean way. You didn't quite get me. It works just the way it does in the stock version. And I consider *this* way a hack. > Your new features have to work in > all templates and not just in a few. Users will be confused and maybe > even pissed off, when they notice it too late. Ahem, this is what major version increases and beta releases are for. BC is a good thing but is not _always_ achievable and desirable. > Thats a perfect example. This is a real BC break, even > if your version is the better one IMHO. Could you introduce > a compatibilty flag? If you didn't get my irony, this was one of the IT's long standing *bugs*. > I want to be honest and remember I am just a IT user: > When reading your list of changes, I think you created the > better IT. Just the replacing is not good IMHO. Smaller patches > which could be reviewed more easily would be _great_. > This has nothing todo with me not liking you ... I just want the > best solution for the userbase. I might consider making patches, they won't be *that* small, although. But right now I have some strange feeling they will never be applied, so can't force myself to bother.

« previous php.pear.dev (#13173) next »