Re: Re: BinaryCloud should be let into PEAR with others as well.... my 2cents
| From: | Stig S. Bakken | Date: | Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:29:43 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: BinaryCloud should be let into PEAR with others as well.... my 2cents | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-847@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Jon Parise wrote:
>
> 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?
Yes it does.
- Stig