Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:19498 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 60738 invoked by uid 1010); 7 Oct 2005 21:47:24 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 60723 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2005 21:47:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Oct 2005 21:47:24 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 70.85.46.36 unknown Received: from ([70.85.46.36:39482] helo=prohost.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id E2/37-54476-CECE6434 for ; Fri, 07 Oct 2005 17:47:24 -0400 Received: (qmail 16665 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2005 21:47:20 -0000 Received: from cpe000fb56099fd-cm000f9f7d6664.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (69.196.29.239) by prohost.org with SMTP; 7 Oct 2005 21:47:20 -0000 Message-ID: <4346ECE6.8050407@prohost.org> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 17:47:18 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rasmus Lerdorf CC: George Schlossnagle , Derick Rethans , PHP Developers Mailing List References: <99dd4f75f4ceebfe1c980cf439e97416@gravitonic.com> <4346E00A.8020504@prohost.org> <4346E0C5.3090001@lerdorf.com> <4346EABE.6000706@prohost.org> <4346EB85.4020509@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: <4346EB85.4020509@lerdorf.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Unicode Implementation From: ilia@prohost.org (Ilia Alshanetsky) Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >>Assuming that 5.1 would be actively maintained and not just for bug >>fixes, I'd say that is a viable approach. There are plenty of sites that >> have no use for Unicode as nice as it may be, and much rather retain >>performance over useless (for them) functionality. > > > So, you are saying that something like the namespace patch would be > added between 5.1.2 and 5.1.3, for example? That doesn't make much > sense to me. No, we bug fix in 5.1.X and put big features into 5.2, in 5.2.X work on fixing bugs and when we have enough, move to 5.3 and repeat... Ilia