Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:85701 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 37895 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2015 23:59:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Apr 2015 23:59:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=cmbecker69@gmx.de; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=cmbecker69@gmx.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.17.21 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: cmbecker69@gmx.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.227.17.21 mout.gmx.net Received: from [212.227.17.21] ([212.227.17.21:63378] helo=mout.gmx.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 1F/0D-56257-1F7DD155 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 18:59:47 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([88.134.68.210]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LzXTy-1ZZNNs3106-014lIC for ; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 01:59:42 +0200 Message-ID: <551DD7F9.4090600@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 01:59:53 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP Internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:T+3CKSTz5JZwXMUD6qsr4j8H8mIK5FyfZV/ursmqaY1YgCzae0Q kjzmUDTbI7Zp1cDqarWeCwYew0GGhnKfKYX7cYXWaBgrI04eCFav6MiQBXA8MRZtf7I7GBe GFt84dPNfy+XDg0n2+0yu3nTe8aF6p9LP9KRkY2DP0+mVpLlPyEBtF3l8ltUGPcS4YCTEtc IuuFrvCqdBPfKpowm3+WQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Subject: Offical stance wrt. bug reports for unmaintained PECL exts From: cmbecker69@gmx.de (Christoph Becker) Hi everybody! It seems there are a lot of (old) bug reports for unmaintained PECL extensions. I wonder what the official stance is on that. For instance, there is #57551[1], which has been "suspended" by Joe Watkins recently. I'm not too happy with "suspending" those bug reports, because they're lying around without a realistic chance of getting fixed, and come up from time to time when looking for a "random bug". Then there is #58612[2] which is about an extension that had its only release in 2003, and its latest commits 5 years ago (apparently, some standard commits for several PECL packages). Wouldn't it make sense to close such bug reports ("Sorry, but you're using an unmaintained extension ..."?). Thoughts? [1] [2] -- Christoph M. Becker