Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:66930
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <515C9878.8060603@sugarcrm.com>
References: <CABBJUpexRYZaXi10UobucCzJUXsLLK9avs+WspdSxyE4vDJ2rA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADNQb0Uo0u2xCbR_joWKmwN9z+77nN-cLQ=Lcq2gpr0hf_A2qA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpfx__wLqtG0w1SQzveggPiWubGLkPUJMFL+27cz3P_GyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpcHuBT6schJm9gDe_tyz=Gvj53dNcs9UKbj2w040pCsiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<515BE6C2.7000801@sugarcrm.com>
	<CABBJUpfFeCwR_L59OsD7ZTtnL4=cNr6HW_boYneUFjKxjKVsqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH5Lr+yeiXwL0PjRb_M3ki6pPCLdMLCRMjqWE2GvM5H7kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADNQb0XeOE62m-ii-13g637C=RRdtH2j9jSnXB7OkLYwhE7bvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<515C9878.8060603@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 14:37:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CADNQb0VozXEaA_HV38bZs0yrMUSrUf15XZno4So9YAn4RLyW5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com>, Laruence <laruence@php.net>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Add a constant to reflect --with-curlwrappers
From: hannes.magnusson@gmail.com (Hannes Magnusson)

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> There is absolutely no need for a RFC for it.
>> Heck, even that initial curtesy mail was more then I would have expected.
>
> Agree, no need for full scale RFC for one constant. However, sending an
> email to the list and actually waiting for feedback is exactly what I
> would expect, especially dealing with stable version and feature that it
> is not exactly clear what's going on with it. We're not talking about
> writing RFCs for every minor change, we're talking about teamwork and
> have members of the team be aware of the change and have time to discuss
> it if needed. Nothing bad would happen if the same commit would land a
> week later, after everybody is behind it and every detail is hashed out
> (or not if turns out it is out of consensus). The point here is not to
> impede work but to support teamwork.


There is a thin line between impeding work and team work for such a
trivial change.
This constant is actually really useful.
The entire feature is however unfortunately broken, but had it been in
a working shape then common. Really? Send an email and wait a week
before being able to write a testcase?

Anyway. Lets move on.
I suspect removing an experimental feature in an extension that is
disabled by default and requires external library still requires an
RFC?
And according to the current rules of the game it cannot be removed in
5.5.1, but has to be removed in 5.6.0?

-Hannes