Re: requiring cvs

Lukas Smith wrote:

I also tend to agree here. I don't know if it's a god idea to change that rule at this stage. However I think we should require that the CVS is public so that we can make incremental backups of the CVS (or even sync it over to pear CVS). This is especially important if a package that is not in CVS ever becomes orphaned. Just a thought. I couldn't agree more. phpDocumentor has both a public cvs viewer and anonymous cvs access at http://www.phpdoc.org

Patches contains absolutely no stability information, and they also

lose

all the benefits of the pear installer (replacements, install-as, OS-specific install, different baseinstalldir). For these reasons, it would be less efficient for complex packages/applications (the only

ones

that would use the subpackage feature are complex, so there you go :).

Just a side note: Well having an easy way to distribute patches and easily (de)install them on the userside might be a good thing for QA. I also agree on this one, although I don't have a clear idea on how to do this. I have toyed with the idea of writing a Patch package which would basically mirror the functionality of the patch command, but if someone else were to write this, it would make me much happier :)

Greg