Re: Re: BinaryCloud should be let into PEAR with others as well.... my 2cents

On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 03:06:44AM +0200, Stig S. Bakken wrote: > > I would be far more infavor of _individual components_ of such > > frameworks being contributed to PEAR, provided they were well > > abstracted, generalized, and documented. > > I think that PEAR will be ready for bigger packages such as full > application frameworks the day we have all the infrastructure up, > because that will make people's focus and perception of pear will change > from today's "the one true cvs tree of code" to "the system for > installing php components". At that time it will make perfect sense to > have a system like BinaryCloud or IMP available for download/install > with the pear tools. But today we're still stuck in this cvs > "pre-hatching" state, and lesser logic applies :-) Okay, I follow what you're saying. To come up to speed: I don't think things like BinaryCloud (sorry to keep picking on them for example sake) really need to be in the PEAR cvs tree. That would make them slightly harder for their developers to maintain, anyway. It would be nice to see them become PEAR compliant so that they can be indexed in PEAR and distributed via PEAR mechanisms. Does that bring us back to the same page? -- Jon Parise (jon@csh.rit.edu) . Rochester Inst. of Technology http://www.csh.rit.edu/~jon/ : Computer Science House Member