Re: New package (PECL) proposal: IBM Websphere MQ (mqseries) - REPOST
| From: | Michael Bretterklieber | Date: | Thu, 15 May 2003 18:58:02 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: New package (PECL) proposal: IBM Websphere MQ (mqseries) - REPOST | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-16319@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi,
Martin Jansen wrote:
On Thu May 15, 2003 at 12:1136PM +0200, Holger Burbach wrote:just my 100 EUR, bye, -- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Michael Bretterklieber - Michael.Bretterklieber@jawa.at JAWA Management Software GmbH - http://www.jawa.at Liebenauer Hauptstr. 200 -------------- privat --------------- A-8041 GRAZ GSM: ++43-(0)676-93 96 698 Tel: ++43-(0)316-403274-12 E-mail: michael@bretterklieber.com Fax: ++43-(0)316-403274-10 http://www.bretterklieber.com ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972On Donnerstag, 15. Mai 2003 11:57, Alan Knowles wrote:Right. I think its much more harder to get 5 votes for a thing written in C then in a scripting language, because the reviewers must have better skills to able to review a PHP extension.+1 here - I thought we had a lower barier of entry for PECL.. (as it's harder :) ..Is there really a lower barrier for PECL packages? The PEAR documentation refers only to PEAR packages proposals. So I thought the same rules apply to PECL packages...