I assigned it to me in order to keep track of it.
Ack, it's not a *problem*, I'm very glad someone's doing that. Just this
time it meant there was an open Phar bug that none of the Phar team knew
existed for the last few weeks.
We've had two alphas and a beta release between March and now, and
another beta release is planned in PECL shortly. (In fact I had hoped it
would be this week, since Greg's now able to communicate again.) I think
5 months is a reasonable length of time for an extension to be in
alpha-beta, personally.
You can't call it alpha, continue active development for two months and
then call it stable, that's pointless.
The first beta release was in May. There's been no active development since
Dmitry's 'Phar week', and aside from that there's been no active development
since June.
The diff since March is more than 1Mb, it's a different extension already.
Try a diff since the last beta release. I think you'll find most of it's
either whitespace or tests - the remainder shouldn't add up to much.
At this moment I don't see any reasons to call ext/phar "stable",
therefore it should not be enabled by default.
PHP_5_3 is also not called "stable" at this point. It'd be a different
matter if it were.
Correct.
But they don't install it by default on all computers.
Exactly :) so there's no problem in having an extension in beta alongside
it.
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
