Re: [PHP-DEV] A suggestion regarding stabel vs. experimental on the extension level From: Jon Parise (jon <email protected>)
Date: 11/16/00

On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 11:27:08AM +0100, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:

> this is somehow related to the 4.1 thread and the discussions about
> which extensions should be in CVS and which should not ...
>
> we could maybe get rid of part of the problem if we'd create another
> subdir 'ext-experimental' (or something like that), move ext/ext_skel,
> ext/sekeleton/ and every extension from ext that is not ready for
> prime time (like ext/dav) from ext/ to ext-experimental/
> and do *not* include ext-experimental/ in RCs and Releases

I'm not sure I like the separate subdirectory system (from a cvs
administrative point of view, although I recognize how trivial it is
to repo-copy the files to ext/ later on). However, I like the idea
that "experimental" extensions be differentiated from "stable"
modules, especially for release building.

I think it might be better to control what gets included by a Makefile
knob. For example, defining 'EXPERIMENTAL' in etc/{foo}/Makefile
would mark {foo} as experimental. The 'make dist' target could them
be taught about the 'EXPERIMENTAL' tag.

This method also has the advantage of it being able to be used
programmatically where applicable ('#ifdef EXPERIMENTAL', for
example). 

-- 
Jon Parise (jon <email protected>)  .  Rochester Inst. of Technology
http://www.csh.rit.edu/~jon/  :  Computer Science House Member

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: php-dev-unsubscribe <email protected>
For additional commands, e-mail: php-dev-help <email protected>
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin <email protected>