Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:79193 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 99610 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2014 16:12:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Nov 2014 16:12:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=anatol.php@belski.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=anatol.php@belski.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain belski.net from 85.214.73.107 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: anatol.php@belski.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.214.73.107 klapt.com Received: from [85.214.73.107] ([85.214.73.107:42398] helo=h1123647.serverkompetenz.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 72/60-32141-00CF5745 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 11:12:49 -0500 Received: by h1123647.serverkompetenz.net (Postfix, from userid 33) id 196966D2001; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:12:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from 217.253.38.215 (SquirrelMail authenticated user anatol@belski.net) by webmail.klapt.com with HTTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:12:45 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5475D7C9.5060901@gmail.com> References: <938fa64195b088657ef0b89c11070644.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com> <5475D7C9.5060901@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:12:45 +0100 To: "Rowan Collins" Cc: internals@lists.php.net User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.5.2 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Popups in the cgi win binaries From: anatol.php@belski.net ("Anatol Belski") On Wed, November 26, 2014 14:38, Rowan Collins wrote: > Anatol Belski wrote on 26/11/2014 11:34: > >> While it might look short cut and too >> late for 5.5, there's indeed no scenario imaginable where such graphical >> elements could be used even as a feature. Neither on console nor as a >> server module or CGI. > > Deciding what releases something lands in is not just about > compatibility, but about stability. A lot more testing will happen with a > 5.x.0 RC than with 5.5.20, for instance. I guess it's up to the 5.5 > and 5.6 RMs to decide whether the severity of the bug fixed outweighs the > risk of back-porting this to multiple releases. > Some bugs have to stay for compatibility. This one is just an issue without any proof to be useful :) Regards Anatol