On 07.03.2008 18:15, Gregory Beaver wrote:
> I wholeheartedly agree that phar needs more testing. I also think some
> other areas of php could have used more testing
Undoubtedly.
>> And I'm still not convinced we should include any PECL extensions in the
>> core,
>> I believe it should go the o
Antony Dovgal wrote:
> On 07.03.2008 05:43, Gregory Beaver wrote:
>> Just a quick note: I'd like to consider another possible approach,
>> having pecl/phar synced from stable pecl release.
>
> I'm not sure it's good idea.
> IMO it should go trough much more thorough testing to be included into t
The very same could be said about phar.
It's going through a final wave of intensive development that *adds* to
existing features; the core functionality's solid, and has been for some
time. Given the end of April 'freeze', we're at least 2 months away from a
5.3 release. Assuming Greg's incl
On 07.03.2008 16:09, Steph Fox wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
>> Well, lets make it convenient then.
>> Including everything into the core is not a solution.
>
> You seem to have missed an entire thread on the subject, along with the
> conclusion that the mechanisms for really doing a good job on this can'
Hi Tony,
Well, lets make it convenient then.
Including everything into the core is not a solution.
You seem to have missed an entire thread on the subject, along with the
conclusion that the mechanisms for really doing a good job on this can't
sanely be in place before 5.3.0 is released. The
On 07.03.2008 12:32, Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>> I'm not sure it's good idea.
>> IMO it should go trough much more thorough testing to be included into the
>> core.
>>
>> And I'm still not convinced we should include any PECL extensions in the
>> core,
>> I believe it should go the other way r
On 3/7/08, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07.03.2008 05:43, Gregory Beaver wrote:
> > Just a quick note: I'd like to consider another possible approach,
> > having pecl/phar synced from stable pecl release.
>
>
> I'm not sure it's good idea.
> IMO it should go trough much more tho
On 07.03.2008 05:43, Gregory Beaver wrote:
> Just a quick note: I'd like to consider another possible approach,
> having pecl/phar synced from stable pecl release.
I'm not sure it's good idea.
IMO it should go trough much more thorough testing to be included into the core.
And I'm still not con
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 20:43 -0600, Gregory Beaver wrote:
> Just a quick note: I'd like to consider another possible approach,
> having pecl/phar synced from stable pecl release.
Yes, that's what I'd like, too. Te problem there is that developers
using CVS checkouts should get a CVS checkout f
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> recently there were quite a few proposals about stuff for 5.3. If we
> implement
> them all we won't finish in a "soonish" time and we get new ideas postponing
> the 5.3 release therefore the following:
>
> - Scanner based on re2c:
> Going to re2c prom
10 matches
Mail list logo
