Re: Request to add the SQL Server PHP extensions to PECL

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:01:06 -0000, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt> wrote:

Basically, this is a rejection of the Cathedral model. The Cathedral model may be outdated but saying it isn't "open" or is against free software principles is a non-sense.

I don't care about Free Software and I'm against GPL per se. So what you say here, in my case, is totally irrelevant.

You may be against GPL and the FSF, but that bears only marginal relevance to what I said. I was trying to present the dispute as being Cathedral vs. Bazaar dispute to make clear that the model proposed by Ashay is neither unheard-of nor uncommon for open-source projects. As far as I know, the only requirements for extensions in PECL is that that are open-source and non GPL/LGPLv3 licensed, that are somewhat useful and they do not replicate functionality that already exists in other extensions. This particular extension satisfies all these requirements.

I'd like to reiterate having (even read-only) projects in PHP's repository is beneficial because it allows us to keep track which APIs are used and how they're used.

Nothing prevents us to fetch latest release and analyze them, very easy to do. But a read only repo in php.net won't happen.

This is another fallacious argument, the fact that you can easily do this for one project doesn't mean it's feasible for hundreds. -- Gustavo Lopes