Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75950
Return-Path: <zeev@zend.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 27363 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2014 12:05:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 23 Jul 2014 12:05:14 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.212.178 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.178 mail-wi0-f178.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.212.178] ([209.85.212.178:45302] helo=mail-wi0-f178.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 21/59-21666-8F4AFC35 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:05:13 -0400
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hi2so2079892wib.17
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 05:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to;
        bh=oHiorNqpWz9RriDhQ3TbaDvRtz1NWgV68hIGXAzMsi8=;
        b=LLiWMgQpWC4am71tE4sfg5Iouf2Ru+BVMhDzBI73Y8zPYYL/skHNZ52w+mye86qbMO
         29USx2q8Qm0OXsqigQyZQEHwI/TaEuArfJ91eRGB+53M7vJIQ1rjhqtQg4F7tGs+Asq9
         GnsVjdRluJDK5/cqK+M7kPnU1Yhrl+iTW00IbcLA26knSesk7ePvTz+94r67BCuDtChU
         2OloOkz93phRE0H/ERilKerpcWzF1TzlOEgQ2HVzq7Q8RHSDuH8IvfweimSAUGmRvE5f
         QSI1JMwwW7eBJUO/nIHA45ZWCg5ePJqeLHuishTgs7K0a+GW78REpue8xuJDAZj7jiDK
         wtLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlAJhPZ2iMPM4G2qqtmZV9y/ERF/m7ctLTNnWnadOw00AG/cc9lsOeJcDe44jDXacPVDcX3Y/n7awX9NzkRwV1e83rRD6hZKuUMcwEHKa3P77No7qYHq+yh01Oyv8owIPB94nXy
X-Received: by 10.180.10.138 with SMTP id i10mr2300387wib.81.1406117111233;
        Wed, 23 Jul 2014 05:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.2.78] (il-gw1.zend.com. [212.199.177.67])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ed15sm8470204wic.9.2014.07.23.05.05.09
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Wed, 23 Jul 2014 05:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
References: <b39ebab3d19d76cda9bafa25919c0e67@mail.gmail.com> <CAGa2bXahqscNFe5Dy7Lc6NcjZDfw+tkNBtM8Z8p-+n7anq8gew@mail.gmail.com> <df087915cfde8c749fd9551953a3ca40@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-PCH7jd6D=sP6MaAD4tK-F0SRXpWj3_bzie9y5ZqeL-Gi3cA@mail.gmail.com> <aa6e605aa20062ea943b550d342ae222@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-PCH54n4aDMriiq4d_V0XFTjgx4wtw3=9=-3swCyJ5LMcUGg@mail.gmail.com> <53CE5B8D.8050304@lsces.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <53CE5B8D.8050304@lsces.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <1DC88C65-9955-4C69-98C6-9126A337F079@zend.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:05:13 +0300
To: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

On 22 =D7=91=D7=99=D7=95=D7=9C 2014, at 15:39, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co=
.uk> wrote:
> It does sound very much as if
> phpng is already a done deal and it just need to be rubber stamped into
> the main development stream?

It's not a rubber stamp.  If you don't feel it should make it in and enough p=
eople will think like you, then it won't make it in.  I think this would be a=
n enormous strategic mistake for the project, but it's a possibility.
You're right that we're not going to write an RFC for each and every of the c=
ountless changes we made.  It's a vote on embracing the entire refactored co=
debase, or rejecting it.

> my own concern as
> always is the effect on extensions I use. These sorts of substantial
> reworks broke interbase for many versions back in the 5.0/5.1 days and
> it was not until 5.1.6 that a working version was restored! Interbase is
> not even included in phpng yet ... as are other database interfaces ...
> areas where performance can be tuned by offloading work rather than
> downloading data unnecessarily.

Assuming someone takes the time to do the necessary fixes to the Interbase e=
xtension, then there shouldn't be a problem.  Like any other extension in PH=
P, things can get messy if there's no maintainer for the extension;  I don't=
 know if the Interbase extension has one, but if not, it may take a while fo=
r it to be upgraded or we might have to consider deprecating it (hopefully n=
ot).  Taking your 5.x example, even though life was tough for Interbase user=
s between 5.0 and 5.1.6, I hardly think that we should have delayed for two y=
ears and a month (the time that passed between 5.0.0 and 5.1.6) because that=
 extension had no maintainer...

Zeev