Re: [Phplib-users] Current PHPLIB development questions

[Joe S. <jo...@be...>]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:46:20PM +1100, Richard Archer wrote:
> At 18:06 -0600 5/11/02, Joe Stewart wrote:
> 
> >The docs are not updated.  The current docs do not exist in the cvs.
> 
> The user comments aren't there, but the base files are all there
> (as sgml). It's a pita to update the sgml, but well worth keeping
> the docs up to date.
> 

I don't believe this is accurate.  The linuxdoc sgml files that exist in 
cvs are not up to date with the docbook version.  The docbook xml and the 
associated files to output the finished documentation are not in cvs yet.

'make all' only creates the html version is the only problem I saw.

> 
> >You may be able to address two questions:
> >
> >What are the release criteria we are looking for?
> 
> My preference would be for:
> 
> complete back-compatibility with existing applications
> good documentation for the changes outlining possible breakages
> not throwing warnings with all error/warning messages enabled
> compatible with the new PHP defaults wrt globals etc (done?)
> a switch in local.inc to choose phplib-session or session-4
> examples of session-4 classes in local.inc and the html dir
> 

No switch in local.inc, but a separate prepend.php.  

> The main thing I would stress is that this release should not change
> the PHPLIB API in any non-compatible way. API changes may occur in the
> 8.0 release, but should not happen in an incremental release.
> 
> The only area where this may not be possible is in the session-4 stuff,
> but this is OK as long as the old phplib-sessions are still intact and
> back-compatible. Switching on session-4 for an existing app would be
> something the developer would do in a test environment (one hopes!).
> 

So, is this the current state of cvs?

> 
> >Do we need a -devel or -unstable cvs tree?
> 
> There is a devel tree (it's the one that's not stable :). Unfortunately
> this code is quite broken. It is really only useful as a resource for
> ideas (like the session-4 stuff). I would be hesitant to over-write
> this tree with a new suite of changes at this point.
> 
> I would like to see the rest of the good stuff merged from the "phplib"
> tree into the stable tree, and the old "phplib" tree deleted (or
> archived, whatever).
> 
> I think it would be quite a good idea to create a new branch for
> development work. I would like to see it called "unstable" and to
> include a file warning against inclusion of this tree for any
> packaged release of PHPLIB. This would be an attempt at preventing
> a repeat of the inclusion of the broken tree in several OS releases.
> 
>  ...R.

thanks,

Joe


> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by: See the NEW Palm 
> Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size!
> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0001en
> _______________________________________________
> Phplib-users mailing list
> Php...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phplib-users