Re: [Fwd: CVS to Subversion move progress]

Daniel O'Connor wrote: > But what about: > > * pearweb (multiple packages, 1x directory) - suggest merging back > into one uberpackage > Hi Daniel, Seriously, this is backwards thinking. The reason the package was split up was because it was impossible to maintain as one uberpackage (this may have been before your time in PEAR, I'm not sure). This does raise a serious problem with switching to subversion that was not obvious - tagging is far less flexible than it appears on the surface. However, the solution for subpackages is to create a tag for the subpackage that includes the whole directory, PEAR/Pyrus will only package up files in the package.xml for the subpackage. This results in more stuff being included than we want, but one can't work around this flaw in subversion very easily. More important, however, is a perception I have that there is a growing movement amongst PEAR developers to adjust everything to the source control in use by the developers in question. For instance, the new namespace proposal is explicitly designed to support git submodules or subversion externals at the expense of the flexibility of splitting large packages into smaller components. Daniel's suggestion proposal is designed to support subversion tagging at the expense of the same flexibility. What is not acknowledged is that these proposals are designed to work around shortcomings in the source control systems, and in fact the suggestions work against some of the strengths of the PEAR installer at managing complex projects. More pointedly: what is the point of using the PEAR installer to manage your project if you are simply going to use subversion or git to manage dependencies? Are we seeing a paradigm shift in PEAR that the installer simply isn't worth using at all? If so, I better damn well hear that now explicitly so I can stop wasting my time on pyrus. Thanks, Greg