Hi Tony,
Not sure what you meant here, but I've been informed about it about 1 hour
ago.
Sorry - it was assigned to you, so I assumed you were aware it was actually
a Phar bug. My bad, I didn't reflect on just how many bugs are assigned to
you.
Surely asking "how many bugs are left" is quite useless, there is bug DB
search, there should be some test facilities.
Greg at that point had limited inet access, hence the question. I did a bug
DB search... but that particular bug showed up as Apache2, ie it never came
up in my search results. In fact there were *no* open Phar bugs.
See, I personally keep my extensions in alpha-beta status for quite a long
time just to make sure they're mature enough to be called "stable".
We've had two alphas and a beta release between March and now, and another
beta release is planned in PECL shortly. (In fact I had hoped it would be
this week, since Greg's now able to communicate again.) I think 5 months is
a reasonable length of time for an extension to be in alpha-beta,
personally.
At this moment I don't see any reasons to call ext/phar "stable",
therefore it should not be enabled by default.
PHP_5_3 is also not called "stable" at this point. It'd be a different
matter if it were.
Especially taking into account its complexity and the fact
that it "intercepts" core functions, which potentially may break
everything, not just phar_*() functions.
Dmitry altered the logic in function interception a few weeks ago, which is
precisely why it needs thorough testing now.
This is not an attack on ext/phar as somebody might have thought, I just
don't want to see yet another release fail.
Understood. But, I don't think any of us want to see that.
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
