Re: [RFC] CVS directory structure

On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 13:04, Alan Knowles wrote: > > 1. > > Change the PEAR CVS directory structure to reflect the PEAR user > > directory structure completly. > You havent got a rat's chance in hell of getting that through - it make > cvs karma imposible, and makes package.xml's a nighmare :) > - I'd remove it from the RFC.. That's just for completeness! ;) I know, that this solution is not feasable in any way. > > 2. > > Simply use ini_set('include_path', "/your/cvs/pear/Image_Text:" . > > ini_get('include_path')); to require one or more packages from their CVS > > directory (for multiple packages you have to add multiple strings before > > the old include_path). > Actually you can still soft-link this in the same maner you would in the > old way... That's true (for people who like the soft-link idea). > > Cons: > - Slight WTF factor when browsing cvs.php.net/pear (on packages that > use it..) > - Long_Package_Names will have to look a long way down for the actual > files.. in CVS.. I can not see this point. All you do is to introduce 1 additional directory level. That stays the same for each package, because it's only the category you add. Everything else stays the same. > > Pros: > > - Very easy developement. > > - Very comfortable developement. > > - No per-package influence on include basis. > These seem a little abstract (even misleading) > - easier for beginners to understand directory structure > - easier for windows users who can not use softlinks. - more comfortable for everyone of us > The boat is still out on this one. - but if you could tidy up the RFC > and remove 1).. it may help to move it forward.. I can do this, of course, but where is the sense? Just add your vore for the second variant and I believe, nobody will ever vote for the 1. Regards, Toby -- http://www.schlitt.info http://www.schlitt.info/applications/blog