Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74958 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47441 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2014 20:37:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Jun 2014 20:37:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.83 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.83 smtp83.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.83] ([108.166.43.83:43956] helo=smtp83.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8A/60-43470-227A0A35 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:37:55 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp19.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4132F1812F0; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:37:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp19.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 746B6180F2D; Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:37:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53A0A71E.9020503@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:37:50 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ferenc Kovacs , Pierre Joye CC: Rafael Dohms , Marco Pivetta , Remi Collet , internals References: <53886F73.70402@php.net> <539B0888.9040208@fedoraproject.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] BC break in 5.4.29 and 5.5.13 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! >> It is definitively not OK. I cannot imagine any feature that cannot >> x.y+1, which happens less than a year later. I think we've been through this a number of times and most of the people agree that waiting for the next release cycle (at least a year) for a self-contained minor function or feature addition makes little sense. People add functions because they have need for them now, not years later when they're ready to make a major version upgrade. We're not talking something huge like new syntax or language feature, we're talking about this: > OPCache: Added function opcache_is_script_cached(). Why one should wait for a year or more to be able to check if the script is cached? It makes little sense to me. Adding it to active branch does not hurt anything, so I see no problem with it. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227