All, I know I haven't much sway here, but...
No disrespect to either Andi or Derick, I just want to register publicly my opinion that putting contentious code into CVS HEAD, even out-commented, sets a worrying precedent. There may well still be 'room for change and discussion', but once it's in CVS it is fairly obvious that this solution is going to be more favoured than any other potential approach. It says the discussion is over. If this is isolated code, surely it shouldn't be too difficult to maintain it elsewhere? I can't see this commit as anything other than a political decision, and it makes me very uneasy. Please - any dev - feel free to explain how I'm seeing it all wrong, preferably in words of one syllable. (Derick: polite ones? ;) - Steph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pierre-Alain Joye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <internals@lists.php.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src /ext/date... > Guys, > > Regarding Derick's commit, it's a very technical matter. It's commented and > not enabled. Now new features crept in and after reviewing the patch, I > felt that it's not dangerous nor complicated to let it sit in CVS > commented. As you can see it's very isolated code so there's still room for > change & discussion. Now to a more important issue than technicality of > where code sits: > > I'll say it again. You should really work as a team and come with the best > solution that will benefit the PHP community! Development is typically a > 1+1=3 equation. The end result of a small team is better than that of an > individual. > > Guys, work [EMAIL PROTECTED] You'll get the best results and ultimately our goal > is to provide the best solutions to PHP users, not spend time in politics > and on ego trips. > > I'm not going to play policeman (and I shouldn't). You guys really have to > work it out together... > > Andi > > At 11:13 AM 7/20/2005 +0200, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: > >On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:40:20 +0200 > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edin Kadribasic) wrote: > > > > > Derick, > > > > > > Didn't we agree not to do this until 5.1 was released? Please > > > revert the object support. > > > >Derick told me on IRC that he agreed on that with Andi. > > > >I still think that we should not expose the new lib now. It is far > >too early. > > > >I said that I will post the specs 10 days ago, sorry about that, > >got other problems to solve (various php4.4 problems like > >segfaults and some more urgent sec fixes in various packages...). > > > >But the fact that we agreed to do not expose it using new APIs > >before 5.1 branched and back to real -dev is still valid. > > > >Again, please revert. > > > >--Pierre > > > >-- > >PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
