Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41003 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 93870 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2008 17:54:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Oct 2008 17:54:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tony@tonybibbs.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tony@tonybibbs.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain tonybibbs.com from 209.191.119.232 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tony@tonybibbs.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.191.119.232 web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: from [209.191.119.232] ([209.191.119.232:25378] helo=web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 3D/1D-25867-DDCD4F84 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:54:38 -0400 Received: (qmail 4047 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Oct 2008 17:54:34 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: HUzlNLYVM1njvo2FFFSYnKrTChWQq5la9tLPg0JfJyRU2x5zK5e9p.GiBJahI.FPlIHYqxCJk4lwAp6sj1u_GRGolL.miE0lP28yGWSoCRHidZXsv0Ylsu3o8vXcU697vcM- Received: from [165.206.169.179] by web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:54:34 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1096.28 YahooMailWebService/0.7.218.2 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:54:34 -0700 (PDT) To: internals@lists.php.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <696583.1217.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] namespaces and alpha3 From: tony@tonybibbs.com (Tony Bibbs) Hi Steph, [snip] This is very negative, Stas. "Everybody wants it so let's push it out without testing". Do you really want a repeat of 5.0? [/snip] I don't think Stas is implying not to test it. We are talking about another 5.3 alpha, right? Clearly the beta and RC releases will allow the community to help test and I really do believe this will get a lot of community use in beta/RC mode. What theories are you referring to that need more exploration that can't be done yet for 5.3? Obviously I'm in favor of seeing this in 5.3 but if it does get postponed to 6.0 it would be nice to see a plan of attack for finishing the implementation immediately after the 5.3 release. Without such a plan I fear Stas' prediction of more of nothing will come true. --Tony