Peter, I did not know about the documentation part, thanks for clearing that out.
I would like to ask though, what is the benefit of having the dead extensions there? >From my point of view, it does more harm than good having them in the manual (I am only referring here to extensions that never got to a production grade). On marking the extension as dead, how would we proceed in this case? Thank you, Stelian On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Peter Cowburn <petercowb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 22 April 2015 at 11:24, Peter Cowburn <petercowb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> cc-ing doc list >> >> On 22 April 2015 at 10:40, Stelian Mocanita <stelian.mocan...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello internals, >>> >>> I would like to ask what on your thoughts on removing the Oracle drive >>> for >>> PDO from the documentation (http://us1.php.net/manual/en/ref.pdo-oci.php >>> ) >>> at least since it's been experimental for a long time now, and it has >>> long >>> standing open bugs, such as: >>> >> > From the documentation point of view: > > Just because an extension is considered experimental, or indeed > unmaintained, is no reason to remove the extension from the manual. We > have a bunch of extensions marked as experimental [1] or dead [2] and I > don't see why pdo_oci should be any different. > > >> >>> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=37706 >>> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46728 >>> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=60994 >>> >>> I know that the extension is marked as experimental already but based on >>> the current status, it's not even that and a significant amount of basic >>> functionality is broken. >>> >> > Let's mark the extension as "dead" in the manual, as we do with other dead > extensions. > > >> >>> Regards, >>> Stelian >>> >> >> > [1] bcompiler, blenc, dbplus, haru, memtrack, ming, paradox, pdo_4d, > pdo_oci, sca, sdodasrel, spl_types, svn, swish, vpopmail, xmlrpc > [2] classkit, fam, fdf, iisfunc, msession, nis, session_pgsql >
