Re: Re: IT[X] status update and a reminder

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Christian Dickmann wrote: > > $tpl->setOption('use_preg', true); > > make this default. > > > $tpl->setOption('preserve_data', true); > > sounds ok. > > > Now, for the reminder: I received two +1's to commit my fork as a > > replacement for the current HTML_Template_IT and three +1's to commit it > > as a new package. Some people gave conditional +1's or abstained from > > voting. > > Since then I made lots of BC-related changes, added testing suite, etc. > > Judging by the server logs, quite a number of people downloaded and > > (hopefully) tested my package. :] > > If someone wants to vote now or to re-vote, he is most welcome. :] > > IMHO we will not accept it as a fork. We had some discussion > and don't want a fork in PEAR. PEAR aimes to have not many > concurrent packages. Forks are even worse. > IMHO a relacement will not be accepted too. Provide diffs against > current version and these can be reviewed and if not BC breaking > accepted. > There will be no other way to go. Just a comment on this: Christian, unless you are certain that you really do speak for "us", please do not use plural first person. In the beginning, I also wanted to avoid having multiple implementations of the same functionality. However, I was convinced otherwise, and we have allowed, although discouraged, overlapping packages since then. Just look at what we have now: HTML_Form, HTML_QuickForm Net_IRC, Net_SmartIRC HTML_Template_IT, HTML_Template_Flexy, HTML_Template_PHPLIB HTTP_Post, HTTP_Request DB, MDB Aligning PEAR around a single template system has been attempted before - it doesn't work, everyone has an opinion, and making a common API seems like wishful thinking. I don't see why this has to be a "fork" though, call it something else, HTML_Template_AB or whatever. - Stig