Hello Antony, Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 5:27:54 PM, you wrote:
> On 12.08.2008 19:12, Steph Fox wrote: >> Hi Tony, >> >>> No, I said I'm going to disable new extension that is known to cause >>> obscure problems in the past and that still does cause them at present, >>> and that was (mistakenly) enabled by default right after its creation. >> >> That really wasn't an obscure bug once the user posted the dump. >> Re-assigning it as a Phar bug would've meant it got fixed at the point Greg >> asked 'are there any open Phar bugs?', if not before...! > Not sure what you meant here, but I've been informed about it about 1 hour > ago. > Surely asking "how many bugs are left" is quite useless, there is bug DB > search, > there should be some test facilities. > See, I personally keep my extensions in alpha-beta status for quite a long > time just to > make sure they're mature enough to be called "stable". > At this moment I don't see any reasons to call ext/phar "stable", therefore > it should > not be enabled by default. Especially taking into account its complexity and > the fact > that it "intercepts" core functions, which potentially may break everything, > not just > phar_*() functions. > This is not an attack on ext/phar as somebody might have thought, I just > don't want > to see yet another release fail. As much sense as that makes. Phar was pretty stable and had it users. Now for 5.3 we added a ton of new features. It is only naturally that we still might have small issues, maybe even a few that cause real problems. But as said, we'll be fixing them hopefully prior to the release. Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
