Re: RFS: Many php-* packages to be updated: php-auth-http php-compat php-config php-crypt-cbc php-event-dispatcher php-html-common php-html-select php-image-barcode php-net-ping php-net-portscan php-xml-rss (updated package)
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 02:27:13PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> Why did you choose SVN? It's not any better than CVS, it has the same
> lacks, like not being able to manage unix rights, which is really the
> basic. Why don't you upgrade to Git or Mercurial which are REALLY a LOT
> better?
> The very big advantage of Git is that everybody can have it's own public
> repository and just send you the URL so you can pull from it.
I choose nothing. SVN is the SCM of pkg-php team, where
there are some pear-modules in team maintenance. I agree that GIT
is great but for storing pear-modules packages I don't care
about using CVS, SVN, ARCH, GIT or whatever SCM.
> > I plan to improve "Requirements for PHP PEAR libraries"[*] to
> > have a common policy for all PHP PEAR modules (common packaging,
> > short/long description, procedures to request a new PHP PEAR
> > module package or updating) in order to facilitate team
> > maintainance and have high-quality and uptodate PHP PEAR
> > packages.
> >
> > [*] http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft-php/html/ch-php-libs.html#s-php-libs-pear
>
> This is a VERY good idea, and I think it will help a lot to improve the
> pear package. Thanks for writing this.
Ok, it sounds good.
Regards,
--
Gregory Colpart <reg@evolix.fr> GnuPG:1024D/C1027A0E
Evolix - Informatique et Logiciels Libres http://www.evolix.fr/
Reply to: