Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:39889 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 92015 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2008 16:04:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Aug 2008 16:04:53 -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] ([89.208.40.236:52208] helo=daylessday.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 23/75-04075-1A4B1A84 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:04:51 -0400 Received: from [192.168.3.254] (unknown [212.42.62.198]) by daylessday.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8E1640166; Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:04:46 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <48A1B49B.8010608@daylessday.org> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:04:43 +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$4501a8c0@foxbox> <48A1ABFA.6080701@daylessday.org> <020201c8fc92$f95d86a0$4501a8c0@foxbox> In-Reply-To: <020201c8fc92$f95d86a0$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 19:49, Steph Fox wrote: > Sorry - it was assigned to you, so I assumed you were aware it was actually > a Phar bug. My bad, I didn't reflect on just how many bugs are assigned to > you. I assigned it to me in order to keep track of it. > We've had two alphas and a beta release between March and now, and another > beta release is planned in PECL shortly. (In fact I had hoped it would be > this week, since Greg's now able to communicate again.) I think 5 months is > a reasonable length of time for an extension to be in alpha-beta, > personally. You can't call it alpha, continue active development for two months and then call it stable, that's pointless. The diff since March is more than 1Mb, it's a different extension already. >> At this moment I don't see any reasons to call ext/phar "stable", >> therefore it should not be enabled by default. > > PHP_5_3 is also not called "stable" at this point. It'd be a different > matter if it were. Correct. But they don't install it by default on all computers. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal