From: Jo R. <jr...@sv...> - 2006-01-31 21:34:46
|
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:48:20PM -0600, Jim Hu wrote: > From what I can tell, there is one reference to publish.php in > comments in the main code; this is a vestige from before publish.php > split into the ical and mozilla specific scripts. So while it should > probably be fixed, it's not clear to me that it counts as a bug. It > has no effect on the functionality, but it does direct the reader to > a nonexistent file. Which is an issue that should be fixed. Minor, but relevant. However, part of what I was wondering was how/what the approach was for the publish.php scripts. Is there a desire to re-integrate them? Or should the comments be updated? (in short, before I spent time to write patches, who owns this and what are they intending to do with it?) > I think Chad is saying is that the main phpicalendar project does not > support the publish.ical.php or publish.mozilla.php scripts. He says > > " we do not take bugs in the pulbish system, including documentation" I'm a coder. The "publish system" doesn't really mean anything to me. The "publish system" could mean the documentation on Sourceforge for all I know :-( If he had said that publish.ical.php and publish.mozilla.php are provided as-is and not supported, then I would have understood. > These were provided by others, and while they are important to those > in the phpicalendar community who can't or won't use WebDAV, they are > a pain for the developers since their behavior is very sensitive to > server configurations. If you look on the bbs, you'll see that we > get a LOT of people with problems using these. They are important to me, and I'm prepared to invest some time in improving them to work better. That's why I need to understand where they are going. > If I understand your request, you are also asking for changes in the > _comments_ on line 52 of config.inc.php, which is supported by the > project. But your reopening looked like you are still asking for > stuff related to publish.ical.php and publish.mozilla.php. You might > try clarifying what you said earlier instead of blaming Chad for > being confused and asking him to reread something that wasn't clear. I did try to clarify. I was confused by Chad's absolute slam down on the topic. It wasn't like there was anything expressed to help me understand what he was thinking about this, other than that I had annoyed him. > The instances in the README accurately reflect the project history as > far as I can tell. The only related lines I can find are: -Added iCal specific publish.php. -Mozilla calendar support added to publish.php. There's nothing here to tell me that the publish stuff is unsupported, or what the intent is for the future. -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation |