Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36033 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 53415 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2008 09:23:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Mar 2008 09:23:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 83.243.58.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 83.243.58.163 mail4.netbeat.de Received: from [83.243.58.163] ([83.243.58.163:47961] helo=mail4.netbeat.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B5/57-16577-49901D74 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:23:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 23547 invoked by uid 507); 7 Mar 2008 09:23:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (postmaster%schlueters.de@82.135.12.194) by mail4.netbeat.de with ESMTPA; 7 Mar 2008 09:23:24 -0000 To: Gregory Beaver Cc: PHP Internals List In-Reply-To: <47D0ABE7.3010700@chiaraquartet.net> References: <1204823427.30934.9.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop> <47D0ABE7.3010700@chiaraquartet.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:23:24 +0100 Message-ID: <1204881804.30934.13.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-1.fc8) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: 5.3 Release Planning From: johannes@php.net (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) Hi, On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 20:43 -0600, Gregory Beaver wrote: > Just a quick note: I'd like to consider another possible approach, > having pecl/phar synced from stable pecl release. Yes, that's what I'd like, too. Te problem there is that developers using CVS checkouts should get a CVS checkout f it, too so it's being tested and can be fixed if needed. And if you read my mail you see that I mentioned doing it during buildconf, which is better than configure, I think ;-) > I am also fine with symlinking until this can be perfected, as it is > just an idea to be implemented right now. right. /me has no powers for actually doing that. johannes