Re: Discussion of SCM_SVN Proposal

On 16 Apr 2004 at 1:46, Clay Loveless wrote: > On 4/15/04 9:20 PM Pacific Time, Chuck Hagenbuch (chuck@horde.org) wrote: > > >> The PEAR project _still_ has no version control package, so I think the > >> grounds for my proposal to PEAR -- "Hey, there's not a Subversion package in > >> PEAR! I bet PEAR could benefit from such a package! I'll write a Subversion > >> package for PEAR!" -- are still solid. > > > > I agree. > > > > [snip] So maybe having a standalone package is the best way to go. > > Thanks, Chuck -- at this point, I also feel a standalone package is the best > way to proceed. Sorry about ruffled feathers, if any -- they were not > intentional! > > I welcome any comments you (or anyone else) may have about my implementation > of SCM_SVN thus far. I know that Horde is open towards PEAR and that the collaboration is good. So I can't see why we shouldn't take the offer and try to make Horde_VC (if needed a bit more pear-ified) part of PEAR. Horde could still use the PEAR-package and ship it with their apps. And as soon as channels become available they can even add a dep to the PEAR-code *and* their Horde-packages. But imho if Horde_VC might become a PEAR package (which I think would be a good thing) then Horde should imho be open to use that package. This way users of Horde as well as independent users of the PEAR package will benefit from the contributions to the common package. Please think your positions over again. And Clay, don't you think you could work on improving the SVN-part of Horde_SVN as it is now, in nice colaboration with the Horde-people? Stefan