Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53621 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 16932 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2011 17:31:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jun 2011 17:31:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.163 smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.163] ([67.192.241.163:45602] helo=smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B0/56-18940-EEF0A0E4 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:31:26 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9475A2702CE; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:31:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 22F63270273; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:31:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E0A0FEA.9070202@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:31:22 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philip Olson CC: Derick Rethans , PHP Internals References: <4DFF7898.7010709@sugarcrm.com> <4E0A03AE.40907@sugarcrm.com> <4E0A07FC.4010808@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.4 alpha From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Also, it's important to clarify that the [soon-to-be-popular] > built-in web server is not part of this alpha because the alpha was > tagged a few days before its addition. I think repackaging would be > worth it for this case, but waiting for alpha2 is feasible. We'll have alpha2 in a month. I'm really not a fan on last minute repackaging, that's when screw ups happen almost every time. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227