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

Manuel Lemos wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > On 02-Mar-00 22:05:27, 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 > > You have to loose control of your developments by making them Open Source > to have your code accepted. > > >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 > > Rasmus and Stig made clear that packages need to be made Open Source to be > accepted. This is true. While we welcome commercial use, embedding, redistribution or whatever of PHP, the PHP Group is not in the business of distributing stuff that is not open source. That can be and is already dealt with by others, including yourself. However, I plan on building a set of FAST packages for use by our developers, and will use PEAR tools to build and maintain them. They will just not be distributed from pear.php.net. > >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. > > Rasmus and Stig want to push the idea that packages to be accepted in the > main PEAR repository have to be made Open Source and the source control > will be put under they CVS repository, not the original authors repository > if it exists. Stop misreading what we say. Both Rasmus and I have said that there is nothing in PEAR that _requires_ people to put their code in some PHP CVS repository. We are simply going to offer this option to people. > I don't want this for my packages. This way I won't contribute at least > with important packages for my work like Metabase. The Metabase download page doesn't say what its license is, but if the open source restriction of PEAR is what prevents you from contributing, I don't see why you are all upset about this. - Stig