Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:30039 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 87692 invoked by uid 1010); 2 Jun 2007 21:56:55 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 87677 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2007 21:56:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Jun 2007 21:56:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mls@pooteeweet.org; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mls@pooteeweet.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pooteeweet.org from 212.112.227.169 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mls@pooteeweet.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.112.227.169 ipx11223.ipxserver.de Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from [212.112.227.169] ([212.112.227.169:53164] helo=ipx11223.ipxserver.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A2/7B-10401-5A7E1664 for ; Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:56:54 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ipx11223.ipxserver.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AEBDF006B; Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:56:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipx11223.ipxserver.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (flottensignalgeber [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11234-06; Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:56:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (108-142.1-85.cust.bluewin.ch [85.1.142.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ipx11223.ipxserver.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49234DF0007; Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:56:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4661E79E.5090600@pooteeweet.org> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:56:46 +0200 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wez Furlong Cc: RQuadling@googlemail.com, Gaetano Giunta , internals@lists.php.net References: <4658DD8A.8050004@gmail.com> <10845a340705290716h33d23284j1714658e7e6d504c@mail.gmail.com> <9bf34f240705290756v59f30bb6s1a06eb591164c857@mail.gmail.com> <10845a340705290803l6524f3edrbc676a3bf150f5c@mail.gmail.com> <4e89b4260705291643r28ded9f1va0b56577827a0328@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4e89b4260705291643r28ded9f1va0b56577827a0328@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by somedaemon at backendmedia.com Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: Fixing PECL + Core From: mls@pooteeweet.org (Lukas Kahwe Smith) Hello, getting back to the original point of Philips email. What is the relation between PECL, especially for packages that make it into core? Does making it into core mean that the PECL package is removed (unless the developer in question is willing to continue maintance)? Or is it maybe time that we start considering PHP releases more like a Linux distro release (take the current kernel and add in a all relevant stable package releases from PECL, QA the thing as a while for a while and release)? Partly this also plays into the entire question of do we care about users running older minor versions of PHP (these are the people that seem to benefit the most from PECL releases). Do we even want independent releases of core extensions? I also find the comments on updating the API versions very important. I think this is something that is taken to lightly. Making sure that API versions are updated is very important. Why is this not taken care of? Do we lack a common standard for when to update the API version? Are developers not aware of the importance? Do we need tools/infrastructure to ensure that the API version is updated? regards, Lukas PS: In context with the discussions about an infrastructure update, I think the time is now to discuss how PECL<->core relate.