Hi,
I propose we move to 3.0-dev for the next version. Some reasons:
- the new config mechanism - some rewrites (for example, the import system) - we are 7 years old!
Marc
Marc Delisle (Marc.Delisle@cegepsherbrooke.qc.ca) wrote:
I propose we move to 3.0-dev for the next version. Some reasons:
- the new config mechanism
- some rewrites (for example, the import system)
- we are 7 years old!
That sounds good to me!
Perhaps this is a good time to re-address the PEAR install procedure I mentioned a few weeks ago?
If it's something that the dev team wants to get behind, the 3.0 releases might be a good time to integrate it into the development and release process.
I'm happy to assist in any way I can towards that end.
Regards, Clay
Clay Loveless a écrit :
Marc Delisle (Marc.Delisle@cegepsherbrooke.qc.ca) wrote:
I propose we move to 3.0-dev for the next version. Some reasons:
- the new config mechanism
- some rewrites (for example, the import system)
- we are 7 years old!
That sounds good to me!
Perhaps this is a good time to re-address the PEAR install procedure I mentioned a few weeks ago?
Clay, did you have a look at the version currently in cvs? Does it help you with the PEAR install process?
Marc Delisle
If it's something that the dev team wants to get behind, the 3.0 releases might be a good time to integrate it into the development and release process.
I'm happy to assist in any way I can towards that end.
Regards, Clay
Marc Delisle (Marc.Delisle@cegepsherbrooke.qc.ca) wrote:
did you have a look at the version currently in cvs? Does it help you with the PEAR install process?
The switch to using config.default.php cuts down on what the installer script I've written needs to do, is also a positive advancement overall.
With a PEAR-installable version, the bundled fpdf could potentially be removed, and dependency on PEAR::File_PDF could be introduced instead -- it's a PEAR-compatible rewrite of FPDF.
API docs are here: http://pear.php.net/package/File_PDF/docs/0.0.2/File_PDF/File_PDF.html
But, I don't know how much of the distribution you're interested in "pearifying" -- small incremental steps are no doubt best.
-Clay
Hi
On Thu 15. 9. 2005 18:17, Clay Loveless wrote:
With a PEAR-installable version, the bundled fpdf could potentially be removed, and dependency on PEAR::File_PDF could be introduced instead -- it's a PEAR-compatible rewrite of FPDF.
Does it support unicode? We have also UFPDF for that and FPDF needed some tweaks to make those two fully compatible
Hi
On Thu 15. 9. 2005 14:41, Marc Delisle wrote:
I propose we move to 3.0-dev for the next version. Some reasons:
- the new config mechanism
- some rewrites (for example, the import system)
I still think that 3.0 should bring a bit more.
- we are 7 years old!
This is a bad reason ;-)
Michal Čihař a écrit :
Hi
On Thu 15. 9. 2005 14:41, Marc Delisle wrote:
I propose we move to 3.0-dev for the next version. Some reasons:
- the new config mechanism
- some rewrites (for example, the import system)
I still think that 3.0 should bring a bit more.
Ok then, but at least lets go to 2.7.0. This will help users and support people clearly understand that versions after 2.6.x are configured differently.
- we are 7 years old!
This is a bad reason ;-)
Right, so we should be at version 7.0 ;)
Marc
Hi
On Thu 15. 9. 2005 18:36, Marc Delisle wrote:
Ok then, but at least lets go to 2.7.0. This will help users and support people clearly understand that versions after 2.6.x are configured differently.
Please note there is nothing different for ordinal users, they just put their old config.inc.php as they could do before. This time they may be will read documentation to find out they can really do this :-).
- we are 7 years old!
This is a bad reason ;-)
Right, so we should be at version 7.0 ;)
The usual reason for big version increments is to beat competitors. The phpMyAdmin GUI company has version 2005, so we should release at least 2006 ;-).
Hi
This is just reply to old mail to make it again alive, when there seem to be more people active on the list :-).
Next version should be 2.6.5, 2.7.0 or 3.0.0?
I vote for 2.7.0.
On Thu 15. 9. 2005 14:41, Marc Delisle wrote:
I propose we move to 3.0-dev for the next version. Some reasons:
- the new config mechanism
- some rewrites (for example, the import system)
- we are 7 years old!
Hi!
Next version should be 2.6.5, 2.7.0 or 3.0.0?
I vote for 2.7.0.
Met oo. 3.0.0 just doesn't seem feasibly. As a user I'd expect a (long requested) structural rewrite (sessions, code/design split, ...) or a boast of new features (templating, config wizard, db-based profiles, ...).
Regards, Garvin
I also vote for 2.7.0. I added support for MySQL 5 privileges management, and I would like to add in 2.7.0 support for creating a view, as discussed on the list.
Marc
Michal C(ihar( a écrit:
Hi
This is just reply to old mail to make it again alive, when there seem to be more people active on the list :-).
Next version should be 2.6.5, 2.7.0 or 3.0.0?
I vote for 2.7.0.
On Thu 15. 9. 2005 14:41, Marc Delisle wrote:
I propose we move to 3.0-dev for the next version. Some reasons:
- the new config mechanism
- some rewrites (for example, the import system)
- we are 7 years old!
-
Clay Loveless -
Garvin Hicking -
Marc Delisle -
Michal Čihař