Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:35943 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 45776 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2008 10:11:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Mar 2008 10:11:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=scott@macvicar.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=scott@macvicar.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain macvicar.net from 72.232.140.210 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: scott@macvicar.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 72.232.140.210 midden.org.uk Received: from [72.232.140.210] ([72.232.140.210:35496] helo=lovelace.midden.org.uk) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9E/32-32207-D602DC74 for ; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:11:58 -0500 Received: from office.vbulletin.com ([217.155.246.60] helo=[10.0.0.116]) by lovelace.midden.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JWU7g-0006cn-BB; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:11:48 +0000 Message-ID: <47CD205B.8070205@macvicar.net> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:11:39 +0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcus Boerger CC: Andi Gutmans , internals@lists.php.net References: <1706278209.20080302232134@marcus-boerger.de> <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE01506D08@us-ex1.zend.net> <1245060809.20080304103839@marcus-boerger.de> In-Reply-To: <1245060809.20080304103839@marcus-boerger.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Replace the flex-based scanner with an re2c [1] based lexer From: scott@macvicar.net (Scott MacVicar) Marcus Boerger wrote: > > This sounds like we are going to do the same mistake over and over and over > again. Who is forcing a hard time line on us? Why are we late in the > develoment I don't get it at all. We haven't done all steps that were on > our radar for 5.3. Now that we finally found time to address this we should > do it. Otherwise the consequence is just that we have to do a 5.4 version > immediately. What is the reason for that, who is more happy with a 5.3 now? > Are we a company that makes money with selling upgrades? > > Best regards, > Marcus > > Agreed, Putting something off for no good reason is going to cause the task to lose momentum. There are three of us more than willing to look at any issues that come up post-merge, at the moment it is complete sans the zend multibyte code. Scott