Zeev, First off, very nice job on the RFC. I definitely like what's happening here.
As far as delaying 5.5, I have mixed feelings. I think we should definitely consider the delay, but only in a time-boxed format. So if we say "1 month", then if it's not ready to be committed in that month, it doesn't get in and we release 5.5 anyway. I don't think we should do an indefinite (not hard-defined) delay, as we could wind up in a situation similar to 6, where for some reason we wind up delayed for 6 months or worse. I'm not saying I think it'll happen, but we should be careful to limit it. In addition, I would suggest putting in a feature freeze for everything except this feature as well. Not because we shouldn't have new features, but to prevent another "everyone wants this, so let's delay some more" feature 1 week before the timebox expires. Additionally, I don't like the precedent that this sets for future releases. That it's ok to break the timebox for some feature. In this case I think we can justify it, but future cases may use this to justify waiting when it's not completely justified in itself. I'm not sure how we can rectify this concern, but I figured it was worth mentioning. Anthony On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Tyler Sommer <somme...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is really exciting! > > As a user, I say allow a delay to get this into 5.5. I was kind of > disappointed that some cache wasn't bundled with 5.4. It's been too long > that this very important piece has been separate from the core. > > > Cheers > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
