Re: Alphaworks for PEAR

Lukas pointed out that I used "fork" incorrectly - I'd like to clear that up :) We would like to do a test release of PEAR, not a non-backwards compatible entirely new PEAR. In essence, it would mean our release announcement would look like: "RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT: phpDocumentor 1.2.2 [[THIS IS *FAKE*, for those who are skimming. phpDocumentor 1.2.2 has not been released]] This release can be installed with PEAR, but requires a small patch to version 1.2. The patch is at http://www.phpdoc.org/PEAR_patch.patch.txt, or alternatively, you can use pear upgrade http://www.phpdoc.org/PEAR-1.2pl1.tgz to apply the patch automatically" Again, this is not a real release announcement, neither the patch nor the .tgz exist, just an attempted clarification of what I said below Greg Greg Beaver wrote:

Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:56:36 -0400 Greg Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net> wrote:

I do think that the PEAR package is an approved package, last time I checked :). Of course, that cvs is in php-src/pear.

"Alphaworks/username" is a bad idea at all. imho. Even while thinking to restrict this usage only to PEAR itself. This is a pain enough to work with branches and sync our work without breaking anything. PHP is far bigger than pear and everyone use their own host to provide some experimental stuffs. That works like a charm. pierre

OK, but we are literally on the verge of release a fork of PEAR at phpdoc.org that has the publicweb role so that people can install phpDocumentor. As far as I know, there are no public forks of the Zend engine, and this is the equivalent. Incidentally, what version numbers can we safely use to ensure that there will be no conflicts with future PEAR versions? can I call it PEAR version 1.2pl1, and add a HUGE warning that this is not official? I'll use release state snapshot. Greg