Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:52142 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 97831 invoked from network); 9 May 2011 08:00:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 May 2011 08:00:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@stefan-marr.de; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@stefan-marr.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain stefan-marr.de from 81.20.134.149 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@stefan-marr.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 81.20.134.149 vps-1012701-4512.united-hoster.de Received: from [81.20.134.149] ([81.20.134.149:44822] helo=vps-1012701-4512.united-hoster.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5A/21-20726-83F97CD4 for ; Mon, 09 May 2011 04:00:57 -0400 Received: from soft83.vub.ac.be ([134.184.43.183]) by vps-1012701-4512.united-hoster.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QJLOb-0000Mr-3s; Mon, 09 May 2011 10:00:49 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4DC79CB9.6090201@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 10:00:42 +0200 Cc: Ferenc Kovacs , PHP Internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <4D53AF3A-BAFA-4816-9C06-694C0435D88A@stefan-marr.de> References: <4DC729EE.9090600@sugarcrm.com> <4DC75FFF.40008@lerdorf.com> <4DC79CB9.6090201@sugarcrm.com> To: Stas Malyshev X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 again From: php@stefan-marr.de (Stefan Marr) Hi: On 09 May 2011, at 09:50, Stas Malyshev wrote: > I'm all for this idea, but the question is - can we have a good design = & implementation in next 2 months? If we can, great, if we can't - I'd = rather have 5.4 than wait for it. E.g., if we have somebody ready to = commit for certain timeframe to come up with it, then it makes sense to = discuss it in this context. Can't we just draw this arbitrary line in the sand, and say from now on, = controversial things are taken out and nothing new is added anymore? Everything which is not yet in trunk and is not required to round up the = release should go into the release after 5.4? For me it seems there is no progress because there is still to much = opportunity to improve things... So, instead of allowing to nominate new features, it might be best to = stick to what we have now, and restrict ourselves to sort out the = controversial stuff. Best regards Stefan --=20 Stefan Marr Software Languages Lab Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr Phone: +32 2 629 2974 Fax: +32 2 629 3525