Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:32118 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 87333 invoked by uid 1010); 8 Sep 2007 18:08:10 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 87318 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2007 18:08:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Sep 2007 18:08:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tony@daylessday.org; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tony@daylessday.org; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain daylessday.org designates 89.208.40.236 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tony@daylessday.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 89.208.40.236 mail.daylessday.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [89.208.40.236] ([89.208.40.236:41244] helo=daylessday.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 38/9D-07479-905E2E64 for ; Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:08:09 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.36] (ppp85-140-120-99.pppoe.mtu-net.ru [85.140.120.99]) by daylessday.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65A06400C5; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:08:05 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <46E2E506.4080808@daylessday.org> Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 22:08:06 +0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rasmus Lerdorf CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CEA2ABE1@us-ex1.zend.net> <46E2CE70.4040907@daylessday.org> <46E2DC80.5060903@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: <46E2DC80.5060903@lerdorf.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: FW: [PHP-DEV] Patch for macros for tracking refcount and is_ref From: tony@daylessday.org (Antony Dovgal) On 08.09.2007 21:31, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > Facebook is quite active in APC development. I'm glad for APC, but this is a separate project (or a sub-project, whatever). > And yes, if it turns out to be 10% slower, a lot of sites are going to want to run without it. Right, but saying that we should be especially careful because this patch may affect company XXX makes no sense to me. Either this company is interested in this patch and helps us to make it better, or we follow the usual development process (i.e. try to make it as better as we can and release when it's ready, but we don't test it for years to stabilize it). > For scripts that aren't very complex and don't run for a long time, GC > simply isn't a very interesting feature. Well, for not very complex scripts most of the engine improvements are not very interesting. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal