Re: [PHPiCalendar-DEV] can someone help me understand bug 1417012?

[Jo R. <jr...@sv...>]

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