un-PEAR-ing
July 5th, 2006Astonishing. I’m quite surprised. I thought PHPUnit was fairly well integrated into PEAR (pear run-tests). I’m not sure if this is a fork, or if PEAR will continue to use PHPUnit as an external dependency?
I’ve never been a PEAR fan. My experiences being peripherally involved with the XML_HTMLSax package weren’t encouraging. However, my opinion of PEAR has turned around in recent years thanks to work such as channels in the pear installer and MDB2.
I hope this doesn’t end up a fork. I see little sense in that. I’ll be interested in seeing the PEAR response.
All Posts
July 5th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
I don’t see a problem with that. PEAR always supported other testing mechanisms and will for sure in the future.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
It is no surprise, Sebastian envisaged this since quite a long time. I consider it is very good for all of us that he finnally took a decision. The decision itself is the best one for phpunit and PEAR.
It is in my opinion absolutely not critical for PEAR. “pear run-tests” does support many tests tools.
July 6th, 2006 at 12:58 am
PEAR will most likely not maintain a fork, it would be a waste of resources. Channels make it easy to install packages anyway so it is pretty trivial to install it when you need the dependency.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:18 am
I also found PEAR has a lot of waste. Tried several classes and spit after I saw what they have inside.
But in other hand PEAR contain a lot of good and quality classes. I like PEAR::DB (PEAR::MDB2 now) and PEAR::HTTP_Request very much - their creators are gods!