AW: [PEAR-DEV] huh ? UDDI not in CVS

Hi all, sorry for the late answer to all your comments about UDDI from one of the maintainers. Christian is in holiday at the moment and I am on the road. We will be back home with good internet connection in seven days. I was only involved in some issues, therefore you get some extended comment in a week. Only some points: the counts were +5 with two conditional. We thought, we followed all standards and points, the two conditionals remarked. If not, sorry, I will discuss this with Christian and then fix it. IMO Peer error handling is included. The cvs question is allready answered, I think. The reason for using not PEAR CVS was, the original developers of the extension wanted to keep it on the old place. I admit perhaps the (Alpha)-release was to early. Sorry for that. Perhaps for the future it would be good to use a standardized second approval-round, in cases there were conditional +1s. We hope, we can solve all problems - sorry for the delay, but we had not much holiday this year ;-) Regards, Tobias > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Lukas Smith [mailto:smith@backendmedia.com] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. August 2003 11:38 > An: nicos@php.net; pear-dev@lists.php.net > Betreff: RE: [PEAR-DEV] huh ? UDDI not in CVS > > > > From: nicos@php.net [mailto:nicos@php.net] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 10:22 PM > > > How come UDDI is a released package and that I can't > find ANYTHING > in > > CVS about it ? > > > > Btw its shitty code, did it get really approved? > > First Nicos cool down a bit. > As you have already learned it is well within the regulations > to have the code in a CVS outside of PEAR. If that is > feasible is another question. > > Also it is not very productive to label someones code > "shitty". IIRC this was the first time he brought something > to PEAR and maybe there was a misunderstanding. I certainly > gave my +1 under the condition that the PEAR CS is followed > and the code is generally cleaned up. > > Anyhow I guess this is a lesson for me (maybe all) that it > makes no sense to give conditional votes. I guess the best > course of action is to refrain from giving a +1 until the > package is in a state that you actually approve of. Until > then one should limit oneself to making comments ("like I > like your code but"). > > Regards, > Lukas > >