Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP6's future

2010-01-01 Thread Ferenc Kovacs
beware, troll. Tyrael On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:11 AM, mm w 0xcafef...@gmail.com wrote: Those things were already deprecated, it's good thing that php 5.3 finally broke bad code, php 5 (since the first alpha) is there since a while, drupal is drupal if folks don't want to fix it,  what's the

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP6's future

2009-12-31 Thread Stanislav Malyshev
Hi! The PHP 5.3 compatibility issue for the Drupal CMS (http://drupal.org/node/360605), for example, had over 200 comments, and it took about 9 months before a patch was committed to the current version of Drupal in September (see comment 158). That's not the only example, but it's a prominent

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP6's future

2009-12-31 Thread mm w
Those things were already deprecated, it's good thing that php 5.3 finally broke bad code, php 5 (since the first alpha) is there since a while, drupal is drupal if folks don't want to fix it, what's the big deal there? just pach it yourself it's open source isn't it? so nothing stop you to fork,

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP6's future

2009-12-27 Thread Mike Wacker
Chris Stockton wrote: Hello, On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net wrote: But what is every ones input on the matter of attempting to boost PHP6's development? I'm willing to give my part in whatever I can to help getting up on the feet to get this ball rolling.

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP6's future

2009-11-17 Thread Chris Stockton
Hello, On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net wrote: But what is every ones input on the matter of attempting to boost PHP6's development? I'm willing to give my part in whatever I can to help getting up on the feet to get this ball rolling. I think that some more

[PHP-DEV] PHP6's future

2009-11-16 Thread Kalle Sommer Nielsen
Greetings Internals I've been thinking for a while what we should do about PHP6 and its future, because right now it seems like there isn't much future in it. PHP6 is already much different in terms of the current coverage, many merges to HEAD seems like non unicode compliant versions. Meaning