Re: Re: cvs: pecl /paradox CREDITS EXPERIMENTAL config.m4 paradox.c php_paradox.h

Hmm, I don't think that many of the people on pear-dev are really qualified to make such a decision about a C module, so if it should have been discussed anywhere, it should have been discussed on the internals list. This gets a +1 from me as it is a very useful module. > > > Can you please elaborate, why you did not discuss adding the package on > > > pear-dev@lists.php.net first? > > > > Ups, did not see a problem in adding it to pecl. Any objection? > > Personally I don't have a problem with it. > But as all releases from PECL > will be published via pear.php.net and thus will be a integral part of > PEAR, you should have asked on the mailing list, like all contributors > to PEAR also do. I don't really buy this argument. Since PHP binaries are distributed via www.php.net, does that mean that we need to discuss what goes into PHP with the web masters and mirror maintainers? :-) Please don't take this as an insult, but more of a reality check. Provided that C extension authors follow the guidlines for the package.xml, and if they are trusted enough to have karma to commit to /pecl (and not just a single module), there should be no reason to prevent them from adding code to the repository. Categorization of the package on the pear site is a separate issue; Uwe might not even intend to host the package on the pear site. But even so, if he has the followed the guidelines and not made any errors, there should be no reason to "drag him across the coals" about adding his package there. And remember /pecl is not /PEAR/pecl. --Wez.