Newsgroups: php.internals,php.qa
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:36722 php.qa:64136
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.198.189 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=fZBJQ9W5Ixv547Z/VM1upnDMKjJ1HucrnBdnTZo/juRIxvfyhEtev+TWVARGqRGu5rzq2QEG+Bdw2EB+d2duFoGUVLC4HtGLPazL/nTWs0JBix8jwmRjfz6eiJ8R0ZH7pydpZDIQRWJGQ0LGrN4jGNSOdtFwEC1VdIOb2glPwao=
Message-ID: <fe05d1540803310844t44bd1d25m30e92ef28de8ff7b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:44:46 +0200
To: "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>
Cc: "Derick Rethans" <derick@php.net>, "Marco Kaiser" <marco.kaiser@gmail.com>, 
	"PHP Developers Mailing List" <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	php-qa@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <826883759.20080331171437@marcus-boerger.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <a2b4d2820803270125w1c167b3fmbd721458457f3643@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1124764115.20080327105033@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <47eb9d50.02e2660a.759d.2e19@mx.google.com>
	 <alpine.DEB.0.98.0803301729300.2627@kossu.ez.no>
	 <826883759.20080331171437@marcus-boerger.de>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] BC break with php 5.2.6
From: pierre.php@gmail.com ("Pierre Joye")

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net> wrote:
> Hello Derick,
>
>   it is a BUG FIX. Not fixing it means more people will turn it into a
>  feature and we will never be able to remove it. Becuase next time you
>  will say we cannot remove it in a minor version as by then you accidentally
>  rely on it yourself.
>
>  We made a mistake! Lets stand up and admit we did. Probably I was involved
>  in making that mistake, so sorry. Done.

We all understand that bugs (or design mistakes) have to be fixed at
some point. However, I'm not sure such fixes require yet again another
fatal error addition, especially not between two bug fixes only
releases. I may live (hardly) with a fatal error between 5.x and
5.x+1, on a case by case basis. And it is perfectly fine to do it in
6.x. I know we have been said that for months now but to explain our
position once again can't hurt.

Cheers and keep the good work,
-- 
Pierre
http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org