Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20331
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
To: internals@lists.php.net,rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:55:01 +0100
Message-ID: <20051125075501.79718ee6@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <43869FC5.4060708@lerdorf.com>
References: <7.0.0.16.2.20051124161240.0573e640@zend.com>
	<20051125034515.6fefa4e2@localhost.localdomain>
	<43867C6C.2010209@prohost.org>
	<20051125040950.26305e08@localhost.localdomain>
	<43869FC5.4060708@lerdorf.com>
Reply-To: pierre.php@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break tousands of apps out
	there)
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre)

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:23:17 -0800
rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) wrote:

> 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.

No, do not blame anyone but the one who commited the change and the one
who agreed.

Do not expect me neither to come up with any complaints, you know how
it ends when I try.

> 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.

Wrong, in the end the one who commits without giving a single shit to
anyone wins, in this case, Derick. You can argue or say all rethoric
you have about code, commits, contribution or cooperation, facts are
that from day #1 the game is biased. If I did not ask and simply commit
my code in 5.0 branche, It would have gave two possible things:

- I lost my karma
- my code will be already in 5.0

Conclusion? I have to be an ass and do what I want, not what other
could expect.

>  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.

I proposed, I convinced people (read the archive if you do not
remember), but my way was too nice and slow for Derick.

> 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.

What I say it is I need one hour to implement a brain dead OO interface
like this one around this API.

And what really matters anyway?


--Pierre