Re: [PHP4BETA] php and MS SQL Server....

Manuel Lemos wrote: > Hello Stig, > > On 01-Mar-00 20:22:56, you wrote: > > >> > CVS? Why? AFAIK CPAN does not require contributors to put their code > >> > under a CPAN managed CVS repository and I don't see a reason to have one. > >> > >> So when stuff breaks you have a chance of figuring out why it broke. Just > >> because CPAN doesn't do it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to do. > >> PHP > >> wouldn't be with us today without CVS. I don't see how PEAR modules would > >> not get the same benefit. > > >We should definitely offer CVS services to PEAR authors who want it, and > >make this the default option, but they should have the option not to. > >PEAR packages will have different release cycles than PHP, and we should > >not add more dependencies between them than is necessary. > > Ah, that's better, because what Rasmus has been saying is that PEAR > packages would be forced into being Open Source to be accepted. > Huh? What is the big problem? PEAR (from what I understand) is just a central place to get code or packages that has certain guidelines for submission. It should be the official repository for PHP code samples or packages. I don't see how this really affects your site or others'. Perl has CPAN, but it doesn't mean that there aren't hundreds of Perl example sites and sites that offer Perl help. I don't think that packages submitted to PEAR necessarily have to be Open Source, they just need to be free to distribute. If Metabase is in PEAR and you say it can be distributed freely, that is not necessarily saying no Metabase has to be developed on a CVS on pear.php.net and it is OpenSource. Michael