Re: [PEPr] Proposal for RFC::Prefix all packages with P_
| From: | Lukas Smith | Date: | Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:59:34 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [PEPr] Proposal for RFC::Prefix all packages with P_ | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-43402@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Pierre wrote:
Hi, On 7/12/06, Lukas Smith <lsmith@php.net> wrote:You are nitpicking words here.Pierre wrote:On 11 Jul 2006 22:10:29 -0000, Markus Tacker <m@tacker.org> wrote:Why did you start directly to the proposed phase without *first* discuss it here? Also the contents is wrong. 5.1 does not introduce a Date class. Please go back to draft. Let first discuss quietly this problem. There is no need to hurry.Markus Tacker (http://pear.php.net/user/tacker) proposes RFC::Prefix all packages with P_. You can find more detailed information here: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=420Err, whats wrong with what he said? All he said that there was a Date class (ok .. so it was just a dummy to reserve the class name) in one of the releases and it was disabled due to issues with PEAR.No, it was not enabled in 5.1, and it will not be in 5.2 either. The problem should be described in a better way. We should talk about the "reserved words" problem, and more generally unprefixed functions or class names. That's why I like to see a draft first, so we can work on it to make this RFC as clear as possible.
Thats why PEPr has a comment feature. regards, LukasI think this proposal is fine and we have discussed the topic before. Now the main question is what prefix to use.Exactly. And PePR does not allow multiple choices polls (for the nth times). So we have to find a compromise here before going in a proposal.