Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:42793
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.182.188 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=fCFC/XDX4MoELtFtH1cyBgTV/1a6ZMDEYQIT6Vqa3Ux6hjxJLKMWJZ5j6AnpL6nqRJ
         oeNYTXHk0yCwcnaOq/ojvjfqjv+PcosVNj4YR59l1+zdKO+AQlIdi2zLF09JxtRxFHbc
         NgcBDz1Md0hNQF+cSF2Bv9XLqhjYB0PI+Ac0c=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2AFD2BBD-912E-428B-978A-5E1949DD4486@pooteeweet.org>
References: <1016989528.20090112233204@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <49760CDF.2080006@gmx.net>
	 <062274D5-9C20-4129-9597-145354A704EE@bitextender.com>
	 <76BB6A71-62B3-4F0F-BB30-89CA7BAF5BD3@pooteeweet.org>
	 <497880E8.5080202@gmx.net> <4978BCB7.7000000@gmx.net>
	 <fe05d1540901221139q6bec2af4i1eb71106799a24a0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <D86F5106-FEDA-4B56-9FCE-1A16A40614A5@pooteeweet.org>
	 <fe05d1540901221208k62d32a4fu3d1c1e454ee31822@mail.gmail.com>
	 <2AFD2BBD-912E-428B-978A-5E1949DD4486@pooteeweet.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:43:35 +0100
Message-ID: <fe05d1540901221243y35dab532g3f4b1d85dbafbf2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org>
Cc: Christian Seiler <chris_se@gmx.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?David_Z=FClke?= <david.zuelke@bitextender.com>, 
	Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>, Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>, 
	Ionut Gabriel Stan <ionut.g.stan@gmail.com>, internals@lists.php.net, 
	Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?= <johannes@php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Object extension, $this binding of closures, chat 
	results
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <mls@pooteeweet.org> wrote:
>
> On 22.01.2009, at 21:08, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> I'm talking about the features we already have, not about adding more
>> major features. If one of the new features is not complete and we know
>> it, why do you want to go ahead then? I can't find any good reason.
>
>
> because it means all the other features have to wait to be released. this
> includes all the features that will be released as part of 5.3 ... and all
> the features that are waiting for after 5.3.
>
> its really time we think release oriented .. not because our money depends
> on it .. but simply because its the right thing to do to at this point.

Exactly, release oriented.

If a feature was planed for a release, it has to be done in the best
possible way, that means solving known issue as far as it is possible.

In this case, both requirements are present. It was planed and issues
have been identified and there is on going discussions about the best
solution. That's why I do not (and will surely never) understand why
we should go ahead with 5.3.0 and think about fixing that after. That
makes no sense to me.

And for anything new coming around and not planed for 5.3.0, I fully
agree with you.


Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org