Re: Re: IT[X] fork, round 2
| From: | Alexey Borzov | 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.