Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20330
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <43869FC5.4060708@lerdorf.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:23:17 -0800
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pierre.php@gmail.com
CC: internals@lists.php.net, Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org>
References: <7.0.0.16.2.20051124161240.0573e640@zend.com>	<20051125034515.6fefa4e2@localhost.localdomain>	<43867C6C.2010209@prohost.org> <20051125040950.26305e08@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20051125040950.26305e08@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break tousands of apps out	there)
From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf)

Pierre, I agree with you that it was a bad idea to turn on the stub date 
class in the final release candidate giving people less than a week to 
notice that we now conflict with a common pear class.  We get all the 
breakage and none of the benefits and nobody had any time to prepare the 
pear side of the house for this.  It also sucks that not a single pear 
person tested the final RC and brought this up in the past week.  There 
is plenty of blame to go around here.

Longer term we have to be able to move functionality from pear to php. 
That's one of the reasons pear exists.  You can argue all you want over 
whose date implementation is better.  In the end code speaks.  I know 
you don't want to write any code unless you are sure it will be the 
chosen implementation, and I don't think you ever managed to convince 
everyone of the $date->m++ style of date manipulation.  Not that this 
really matters, in the end what matters is actual working code.  We will 
choose inferior working code over the perfect half-finished 
implementation every time.  So, if as you say it will only take you an 
hour to implement, please do it so we can try it.

-Rasmus

Pierre wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:52:28 -0500
> ilia@prohost.org (Ilia Alshanetsky) wrote:
> 
> ^
>> Pierre first of all I put the change in after a discussion with Derick
>> and a number of the while you were present btw. This was done to
>> declare the date class for "future" proofing and allow isolation of
>> date constants into a class, as is done for all new OO extensions.
> 
> You cannot trust Derick about ext/date, sorry.
> 
> He did not respect our decisions since he started to work on the TZ
> support and force anyone to use the new implementation in 5.1.x.
> 
> I never agreed to anything Derick did in 5.x but was forced to shut up
> and let him put some stupid object inside a #ifdef, as far as this crap
> was in a #ifdef, yes I would have said, fine, we have time until php6.
> 
>> I'll pretend that by "crappy" you mean limited, which it is because
>> all the methods are disabled till 5.1.1 when we will enable them to
>> allow a extensive test cycle.
> 
> It is crap, I need one hour to do it and I doubt Derick has any good
> plan about a real new Date object API in php
> 
> But this is _not_ the problem, and you know that.
> 
> --Pierre
>