Hello Pierre, Friday, July 21, 2006, 2:56:00 AM, you wrote:
> Hello, > On 7/21/06, Andrei Zmievski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Regardless of whether you wanted him to rename it or not release it >> at all, you were concerned about the impact a class named 'Date' >> would have on PEAR and other userland apps, were you not? > Actually no. > As Lukas and I pointed out *many* times, PEAR itself was not my > concerns in 5.2.0. But the noises generated by the "It's PEAR, Shoot!" > effect silenced any of my real worries. And I think anyone does not > even remember what I actually said, but only that pear is gulty, > right? >> How is this different from pecl/zip? > Excuse me, but have I really to repeat the same thing over and over? > Ok, parce que c'est toi: > - Not enable by default, you have to manually active it. Date is > enabled by default There is absolutley no difference here. Core extensions will be enabled by most hosters/users. So what? > - I will not propose to enabled it by default as long as this naming > problem is not solved once and for all (that will bring us to php6 > imho) > - I actually ask the lists before commiting it. Next time maybe not, > it is way easier to get things in without asking We all normally ask before we commit. And we have a lot of discussions going on in the back when it comes to specific parts where only a few are involved - all after discussing and a general agreement on something. That put aside, Derick asked before 5.1 and it was denied because of PEAR and nothing else. And it was also agreed that it would be enabed for 5.2. So i'd like to kindly ask you to stick to discuss first semantics. marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
