Re: name for "new" IT[X] package: HTML_Template_ReIT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 First of all, I'm sorry, the original message supposed to be public (I forgot to make a group reply). I think is all quoted in here so I will not send it again. Pierre-Alain Joye, el jueves 27 de febrero a las 03:13 me escribiste: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 23:00:56 -0300 > Leandro Lucarella <luca@llucax.hn.org> wrote: > > > I'm really tired about this discution, > > Same here. > > > and I don't understand why don't you release in a major version the > > new IT. The excuse of "people will get mad when they upgrade" have no > > sense for me, > > How many applications do you have around using IT ? or how many > applications do you know that uses IT ? That makes for me a good enough > reason to do not break BC, suddenly. Especially if there is a not so > hard way to provide the same thing without breaking BC. That is not like > your sample PHP5 (which keeps BC as far as it is possible). I don't have any applications using IT, but I'm using, for example, apache 1.x even when 2.x is out because it breaks BC and I don't have the time to migrate. You can allways use the "old" version. > > because major version *are* for breaking BC. > > Is it a new rule? Well, you are right, lets say major version *can* break BC. > > If this excuse is valid it wouldn't exists any version 2.x of any > > program, and PHP itself goes for his version 5.x. I'm new in PEAR and > > I thougth it was a great project but this endless discussions make me > > doubt :( I don't understand either why don't you want to make Alexey a > > manteiner for IT when it shows a great commitment to the package. That > > doesn't mean that you have to drop it, you can work together. You have > > to make what is best for PEAR in my really really humble opinion. > > Work together, this is the words I like to hear. I'm asking patches > against the current version. Once I have them, I and anyone else can > safely test them, check BC and so on. I asked them many times, no way, > the pure replacement seem to be his only choose. So where should I go ? He make a rewrite. Why don't you take a look to the code and see if it's good. If it's good, and has all the test done, what's the problem on changing the code. I mean, why don't you (both) try to see how you can get the best from both "versions", without caring about what is the original "version"? > I choose to do it myself (or if someone else do it), and apply it. That > takes time, and I cannot do it right now, even not the next 2 weeks. I > have to fix the installer on win32, go-pear, and some parts of the GD, > besides my daily jobs, that why I have still not provide the new > things, accept my humble excuses to do not have enough *free* time to > do it. I understand you don't have free time, I don't understand why don't you take advantage of this opotunity and let another person (who looks very active) to mantain this package. > Anyway, be sure I appreciate his work as its right level, regardless to > his attitude. I think this is exactly the problem, you don't like his attitude and that's why you don't accept any other solution apart the small patches wich has no sense since is a rewrite. - -- LUCA - Leandro Lucarella - Usando Debian GNU/Linux Sid - GNU Generation - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-Mail / JID: luca@lugmen.org.ar GPG Fingerprint: D9E1 4545 0F4B 7928 E82C 375D 4B02 0FE0 B08B 4FB2 GPG Key: gpg --keyserver pks.lugli.org.ar --recv-keys B08B4FB2 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ambos se dañan a si mismos: el que promete demasiado y el que espera demasiado. -- Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. (1279-1781) Polígrafo alemán. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XXgfSwIP4LCLT7IRAspLAJ9T6pXlGIrodSwbk1/kPO+jL9c3JACgoXft YjJKZuSj3V38SCLDvE/7/Ro= =yBLD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----