Re: [QA] pear install Date
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:10:16 +0200
Jan Schneider <jan@horde.org> wrote:
> That doesn't mean that the package may be unusable. An why is such a
> small package in beta state for two months?
This addition has been wrongly done before the release and I missed this
change. My apologies.
That said, did you read my RFC about the UTC issues? did you read my
posts in this ML? Did you see tons of replies, comments and so on? I do
not. Then no cry ;-)
> That's not the point. I don't know if "beta" is the default preferred
> state on a clean PEAR install or not, but at least a lot of packages
> are only available if you use this configuration.
> And people having this configuration (because they need some packages
> otherwise not available) run "pear install Date" and get an unusable
> package breaking their applications that rely on it. This has nothing
> to do with blindly running "pear upgrade-all".
There are package status that tell you what is the actual state of a
specific release. Everything else than stable means you should not use
it in a production environment. If you do it, do it as your own risk.
> That's not the point either. IIRC it was you that fixed Date's
> package.xml right after the release and since then a LOT of people
> reported problems with the Date package and even pointing on a
> solution. The problem is: The solution was already there but hidden in
> the developers' space instead of made available publically. And it
> was/is only a very small step necessary to fix the package/release a
> fixed package. No debugging, no developer action.
I agree, I rather prefer to fix everything once and publish another
*beta*, as there will be many changes in UTC/Timezone datas and
functions to make it really crossplatform. But once again, BETA.
> > At the same time there are some really dedicated people working on
> > building up this infrastructure. The number is actually quite small
> > and yet progress is being made.
>
> That's correct and I appreciate their and your efforts a lot. You all
> do a great job in raising this building but unfortunately fail in some
> areas that I think are very important.
>
> > Anyways since this small group is making progress imagine the
> > progress we could be making with every new dedicated developer!
>
> Such issues can't be solved by having more developers (and don't have
<snip>
> fix old one, and we aren't much better with early and often releases
> in the Horde project.
Except the UTC problem and fix the package.xml, not that much :-P. I
should think to definitly move to the "release often" idea :).
I'm actually out of the office and will be back tomorrow. A release will
be done at this time.
Sorry for the incoveniences,
pierre
Thread (21 messages)