Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20332
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
To: pierre.php@gmail.com
Cc: internals@lists.php.net, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051125075501.79718ee6@localhost.localdomain>
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>
	<20051125075501.79718ee6@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:16:43 +0800
Message-ID: <1132903004.9936.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break tousands of apps out
	there)
From: alan@akbkhome.com (Alan Knowles)

This one's a bit more annoying than usual ;)

It will basically break application that depends on the Date package
(eg. most of my code as DataObjects uses it internally).. Do we really
need another barrier to upgrade to 5.*?

Regards
Alan


On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 07:55 +0100, Pierre wrote:
> 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
>