Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55389 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 73734 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2011 17:42:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Sep 2011 17:42:15 -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 67.192.241.153 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.153 smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.153] ([67.192.241.153:59825] helo=smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 01/F0-60672-5744E6E4 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:14 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp15.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 90721300DAC; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp15.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 515B8300477; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:42:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E6E4471.9090204@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:42:09 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ilia Alshanetsky CC: Internals References: <4E6966D2.6030804@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] APC in 5.4 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! On 9/12/11 5:09 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > The agreement to include apc in 5.4 is an old one, unfortunately the > action of doing was just missed. Also, inclusion of the extension > won't break any code since it is self contained... If it's an "old one", how comes nobody ever mentioned it during all the extensive process of naming features, voting, etc. and didn't bother to propose it? I don't feel good about first agreeing to a set of rules and then immediately starting to throw them away "just this time, just for this occasion". Why have rules and release cycles then? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227