Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39880 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 78074 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2008 15:28:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Aug 2008 15:28:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tony@daylessday.org; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tony@daylessday.org; spf=pass; 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] ([89.208.40.236:48610] helo=daylessday.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 9E/72-04075-00CA1A84 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:28:01 -0400 Received: from [192.168.3.254] (unknown [212.42.62.198]) by daylessday.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B1B640166; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:27:57 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <48A1ABFA.6080701@daylessday.org> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:27:54 +0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20071114) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steph Fox CC: Pierre Joye , php-dev References: <4892E15D.1080004@daylessday.org> <48A19D61.6080502@daylessday.org> <48A1A631.20506@daylessday.org> <01da01c8fc8d$d3249f00$4501a8c0@foxbox> In-Reply-To: <01da01c8fc8d$d3249f00$4501a8c0@foxbox> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] enabling everything by default From: tony@daylessday.org (Antony Dovgal) On 12.08.2008 19:12, Steph Fox wrote: > Hi Tony, > >> No, I said I'm going to disable new extension that is known to cause >> obscure problems in the past and that still does cause them at present, >> and that was (mistakenly) enabled by default right after its creation. > > That really wasn't an obscure bug once the user posted the dump. > Re-assigning it as a Phar bug would've meant it got fixed at the point Greg > asked 'are there any open Phar bugs?', if not before...! Not sure what you meant here, but I've been informed about it about 1 hour ago. Surely asking "how many bugs are left" is quite useless, there is bug DB search, there should be some test facilities. See, I personally keep my extensions in alpha-beta status for quite a long time just to make sure they're mature enough to be called "stable". At this moment I don't see any reasons to call ext/phar "stable", therefore it should not be enabled by default. Especially taking into account its complexity and the fact that it "intercepts" core functions, which potentially may break everything, not just phar_*() functions. This is not an attack on ext/phar as somebody might have thought, I just don't want to see yet another release fail. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal