On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Marcus Boerger wrote: > Hello Derick, > > Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 5:02:32 PM, you wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Edin Kadribasic wrote: > > >> I have to agree with this. The concept of PECL windows binaries depends on > >> the > >> fact that PHP extensions are binary compatible among patchlevel versions. I > >> guess authors of propriatory PHP extensions would face the same problem. > >> > >> If we absolutely need to fix this, prior to 5.1.0 release the only > >> responsible > >> thing to do would be to rename 5.0.3 -> to 5.1.0 and move HEAD branch to > >> 5.2.0. > > > I would be against the latter, so IMO we should return the signature to > > the previous version. > > I agree here and to me the issue just proves that we released 5.0 far to > early. And i don't like to change because the things i am doing rely on > this "FIX".
Hmm, the amount of bugs in 5.0 has been relatively low, and not worse than 4.x. Anyway, I don't think that 5.0.x should have been delayed for SPL related features. It's actually proven to be a very successful and stable release, and yes, like other releases we have had, there's also plenty of room for improvements and bug fixes (we are still bug fixing the PHP 4 release :) Andi -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
