Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95193
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender)
To: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>,
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <f790ef52-0a92-a8a3-bb3d-891713b390be@gmail.com>
 <351c6035-2428-5296-2429-69145f7da841@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <db0ff6bd-8f49-1fc8-5f99-d9253e8dd02e@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:46:32 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <351c6035-2428-5296-2429-69145f7da841@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [RFC] orphan extensions cleanup
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> Generally, I'm all for moving unmaintained extensions to PECL.
> However, I wonder on what information the concrete selection of
> unmaintained extensions in the RFC is based.  If it is
> php-src/EXTENSIONS, the RFC is moot, in my opinion, as this file is
> grossly out-dated.  It seems that

I don't see how it makes it moot, unless that means we actually have
maintainers for all the extensions but we don't know it. In which case,
I think RFC is successful, even if leads to just updating EXTENSIONS.
And since we don't really have anything else, at least for now, we would
go with the best info we have.

As you can see, there's also a need for updating EXTENSIONS and figuring
out if the listed maintainers are indeed still active, which will be
topic of the followup RFC.

> Again, I don't complain that the maintainers are inactive (what is 
> absolutely fine for me), but rather that php-src/EXTENSIONS is
> totally out-dated.

True, but that only makes the maintainership status update *more*
necessary, not less.

> The bug tracker statistics appear to present a somewhat more
> realistic view: <https://bugs.php.net/stats.php>.  The topmost
> bundled extensions having the most unresolved issues are standard,
> soap, date, spl and pdo. The XML related extensions (libxml, dom,
> simplexml, xml, etc.) also sum up.

The problem is not a sheer number of issues, but the question of if
there's anybody to take care of them, especially the important ones.
E.g. I've had to deal with wddx and exif issues, even though I don't
know both formats well enough - because otherwise we'd have security
bugs sitting there for a long time. Also we have security issues in
mysql that nobody is taking care of, and in FTP, and in libxml, and in
FPM, and in other places.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com