Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65204
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU6XJ5MCnY+=HOR1pdmNdyMGJ0_6smnOKF--AVYRVkrCpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <slrnkg3ag2.g88.dsp@experimentalworks.net>
	<CAJW__o2gncnxnAGd7M7jZjxGADzt2D9xYQOyhp_797Lebx5JSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL+t6cH6b290+T9=dLp_FFaFCAUiJumx9zvWQNiUr5KfKyunXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<51023AB1.2010607@b1-systems.de>
	<51024016.4010005@lerdorf.com>
	<c2813d225363300a730e2d4009ae3ec1@mail.gmail.com>
	<5102D2A1.3040105@sugarcrm.com>
	<8995783a3f4c211d32022028445e7a60@mail.gmail.com>
	<5102D4C1.9020003@lerdorf.com>
	<CAEZPtU6XJ5MCnY+=HOR1pdmNdyMGJ0_6smnOKF--AVYRVkrCpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 03:26:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nE0S9uq8_XA21+VC3sfTiacge-9-sEwdKBai-uKocR6bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
	Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, Ralf Lang <lang@b1-systems.de>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30780ca4c8efd304d42cce6d
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] HEADS UP: Upcoming Feature Freeze for PHP 5.5.0
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

--20cf30780ca4c8efd304d42cce6d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Pierre et al,

I would prefer to have it in pecl and merge once ready/cleaned up.
> Yes, same idea than with APC, except that it could be faster (for what
> I read, waiting to see the sources). Also we can review and do the
> changes more easily.


Well, I think the one issue with doing it in PECL first is that it prevents
some deeper engine integration that could benefit the implementation
significantly.

With that said, I think it's a bit too tight to try to merge this in for
the 5.5 beta freeze. Given the current RFC process requires a minimum of 2
weeks (1 of comments and 1 of voting), it feels tight. I'm not saying that
I think we should stick to the numbers hard in this particular case, but
 it's also not a trivial patch, and I feel that rushing wouldn't be the
best idea.

So with that said, may I suggest that we add 1 more round of Alpha to the
5.5 release cycle, with the specific intent of merging this in (assuming
the implementation goes well). So we'd be talking about adding
approximately 2 weeks to the cycle, but it would ease the time and
 implementation pressures that could otherwise cause issues. I think this
feature is worth pushing 5.5 back slightly, but at the same time not
delaying it indefinitely until this gets in. So if in 4 weeks (the time
until the beta, under this strategy) this isn't ready, it wouldn't make
5.5. But at the same time it gives us enough time to implement it,
understand the implementation and make a decision that's based on a
concrete implementation than an "in-progress" one.

Thoughts?

Anthony

--20cf30780ca4c8efd304d42cce6d--