Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20716 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 82066 invoked by uid 1010); 28 Nov 2005 12:14:15 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 82051 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2005 12:14:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Nov 2005 12:14:15 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.74.107.235 mail.zend.com Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from ([80.74.107.235:15223] helo=mail.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id A0/15-21657-694FA834 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:14:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 7071 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2005 12:14:10 -0000 Received: from internal.zend.office (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (10.1.1.1) by internal.zend.office with SMTP; 28 Nov 2005 12:14:10 -0000 Message-ID: <438AF493.9060607@zend.com> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:14:11 +0300 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lester Caine CC: Edin Kadribasic , internals@lists.php.net References: <200511281126.15839.Piotr_Roszatycki@netia.net.pl> <438ADE10.4080409@lsces.co.uk> <438ADFE3.60307@emini.dk> <438AE275.6000804@lsces.co.uk> <438AED38.3060202@emini.dk> <438AF1A5.4000800@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <438AF1A5.4000800@lsces.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.0.5? From: antony@zend.com (Antony Dovgal) On 28.11.2005 15:01, Lester Caine wrote: > Edin > > You are missing my point - I'd rather STOP people downloading the stuff > that is CAUSING problems everywhere !!! > > I am still playing catchup with 5.0.5 and now there ase 'complaints' on > various forums that some package does not work with 5.1 - do I now fix > that - since people are NOT accepting that PHP will be fixed !!! > > We KNOW what the problems are, but it's people like me who are getting > it in the neck because *MY* software does not work. When it's not > actually MY fault that is has been broken yet again. I did not write the > original code I am just trying to keep it working !!! I'm pretty sure you had a lot of time to test *YOUR* software with release candidates and figure out if it's ready for 5.1 or not before the release. And please, when you say "it has been broken yet again", explain what do you mean by that. Thanks. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal