Re: Re: BinaryCloud should be let into PEAR with others as well.... my 2cents
| From: | Alex Black | Date: | Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:55:22 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: BinaryCloud should be let into PEAR with others as well.... my 2cents | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-732@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
forgot to post this to pear-dev...
>> Last news I had was PHPlib was in the process of being integrated? Maybe I
>> missed something...
>>
>
> You did, it ain't. Someone wanted to port a few of the "HTML-Wizard
> Classes" to PEAR (like OOH-Forms, SQL_Query, etc..) but it still hasn't
> happened, the SourceForge site set up to do this hasn't been touched in
> since the intial import several months ago.
Too bad.
>> I haven't see anyony on the list say "no, don't add it" so I'm not
>> sure what
>> this is in reply to (did I miss something?)
>
> Yes, people did.
yes, I saw that :)
>>> However, make room for application frameworks for binary cloud and the like,
>>> and keep those separate somehow from the core of PEAR, but at least allow
>>> them in somwhow, and now you have something that many, I mean MANY people
>>> would be very interested in.
>>
>> That I agree with.
>>
>
> As do I, but it won't happen. Get over it. Neither phplib nor
Nothing to get over, really. I am of the opinion that frameworks in pear
would be good, but I'm not exactly committed to it, nor am I _dying_ to have
binarycloud in pear.
When I posted that original, I was under the impression that frameworks
_were_ in pear, given phplib, and I could just check in (after all, why
not?)
> binarycloud will make it into PEAR. Just move along and pretend this
> never happened. At least, that's what I'm doing.
Heh, well discussion is discussion, that's what this is all for, right?
Barring Sebastian's unintelligible "strange" comment, I think in general
people responded quite normally:
"I don't want that in here because it's not what we're doing"
That says it, so I'm not checkin' in.
>> Inclusion should not necessarily mean "endorsement" it should mean "base set
>> of quality requirements met"
>>
>
> Ahh.. But I get the feeling it does.
Right. I think that's a mistake but that's me and this isn't the place for
that. Did that once (the whole proving my point thing) and I only needed to
do that once :)
------
Great code, all. I'm doing PEAR_Error integration into bc fairly soon, and
will probably email issues/etc to the list.
best,
_alex