Many backends (WAS: Re: [Phpwiki-talk] Wiki spam and the future of phpwiki)

[Dan F. <dfr...@cs...>]

Arnaud Fontaine wrote:

> "Release early, release often" .. That's one of the main bazaar rules.
> It's really important for the developpement to go nicely.


Yep.

> | Finally, I believe this goal would be aided if there were much less 
> code
> | to maintain. For example, support only one backend.


> About backend, I really like the "large" choice of backends. But maybe
> the persistence abstraction layer is not that good ... that means too
> much work in the backend layer ...
> Maybe we should keep only one SQL library (ADODB ? PEAR ?) ... but we
> shouldn't drop flatfile, cvs, dba, etc ... they are very important, make
> the install process very simple in most cases ...


See, I completely disagree. Why keep flatfile and cvs and dba? I've seen 
Reini wasting time answering people who email the list, "Probably dba is 
not installed on your system" etc. Why not just keep ONE of flatfile, 
cvs and dba? Why keep all 3? You have not made a strong case.

All the back-ends cost a TON in support, both development and even more 
on the mailing lists and in user frustration. This contradicts your 
"release early and often" above. Rather, make one or two back-ends work 
really well.


> I think we must find a different dev/commit model to attract more
> developpers and ... keep us working on phpwiki ... Should we have
> several cvs/svn trees and decide on a process to merge them every ...
> week ? Or have several cvs branches ? Should Reini or Steve give write
> access to any/more contributors ?


We should first reduce the support load and focus on what PhpWiki does 
best, whatever that is.

Dan