Re: Discussion of SCM_SVN Proposal

On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 09:02:53AM +0200, Bertrand Mansion wrote: > > I will continue to ask PEAR developers to consider that option when it > > makes sense and when it saves us from needless code duplication, yes. > > Just review the proposed code before posting things like "Hey, we've got the > same in Horde !". By doing this, you make people think that the proposed > package is actually a duplication. I said this: Have a look at the Horde VC package. It provides unified version control support for CVS, RCS, and Subversion. Chuck said this: Horde's VC:: API is already used by Chora (http://cvs.php.net/) to provide a frontend for either CVS or Subversion, so it's pretty broad. I'd love to get someone more focused on the SVN side working with the VC API to flesh it out/troubleshoot. Clay looked, said he wasn't interested, and that was the end of it. I think the creation of a brand new version control package from scratch would be a waste of developer resources when one already exists (and which has been offered to the PEAR community). > > There's plenty of work to be done in the PEAR community, and I feel > > that rewriting code that already exists is not the best use of our > > developers' resources. > > The proposed code was not a rewrite of anything from Horde. Besides, it is > not because it exists in Horde that there is not a better way to do it. Oh, good lord. I've already said this has nothing to do with the proposed code. Every one of my messages have differentiated between the SCM_SVN proposal and the ensuing discussion of a generalized version control package. I'm done with this thread now. I've only stayed in it this long to defend the Horde stance. We're not trying to be asses about this. We have stakes in the Horde, PEAR, and PHP camps, and we've been involved in these projects for a very long time. They're collaborative, not competitive. -- Jon Parise (jon@php.net) :: The PHP Project (http://www.php.net/)