Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65205
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.128.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: julienpauli@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nE0S9uq8_XA21+VC3sfTiacge-9-sEwdKBai-uKocR6bw@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> <CAAyV7nE0S9uq8_XA21+VC3sfTiacge-9-sEwdKBai-uKocR6bw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 09:39:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMUwpuR3Mb4tzYmwuTUVxJVRqF6=P6L9B83bDG_=FLMN0cu0Ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, 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=bcaec517ab26a9173404d42cff06
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] HEADS UP: Upcoming Feature Freeze for PHP 5.5.0
From: jpauli@php.net (Julien Pauli)

--bcaec517ab26a9173404d42cff06
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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?
>

I'm ok with that, that's safe and clean :)

Julien.P

--bcaec517ab26a9173404d42cff06--