Re: Unmaintained Extensions moved out of core

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:12:29PM +0200, Pierre Joye wrote: > > 1) See if they compile against 5.3.0 > > It makes little sense to me to spend time on dead extensions, orphaned > extensions but still having users could get some love, obviously. Sure - I'm not trying to invent work, here. We had someone show up in ##PHP on Freenode looking for dbase, which kind of kicked off this little search of mine. I have no idea how many other users may be trying to find an extension that has been moved OUT of php but hasn't been published on PECL yet - I'm assuming even just pushing a base release would allow us to gather some statistics on which of these are actually being used? > > > 2) If they fail to compile and... > >         a. I can fix them, get them fixed and published in PECL > >         b. I cannot fix them, try and find a maintainer for them, > >                or get them marked as deprecated. > > > > 3) If they pass (1), get releases built and the extensions > > registered on the PECL site so they are available for download. > > We should mark 2a and 3 as unmaintained/superseded/dead or orphaned. I agree - basically, I'm offering to investigate which of those options should be applied to each of the extensions I listed, and hopefully you can intuit the basic criteria I'm thinking of applying from the outline I provided. On the other hand, Pierre seems to already be some sort of "Default Extension Owner", so maybe I should just leave it up to you guys? I'm more than willing to follow whatever guidance Lukas & Co. care to give me on this. Either way, let me know how/whether I can help. > Such message can be seen in the domxml package (see below). > > We already have messages for them in the package homepage, see > http://pecl.php.net/package/domxml for an example. > Ah - thank you, I hadn't thought to look at those, only at the www.php.net side, because I *knew* they were superseded, and didn't expect to find them in PECL at all.