On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > No. > > First, read what 'integration' means in the RFC or in the excerpt > Chris was nice enough to send you. It means including the extension, > which doesn't fall under "changing the language" in the voting RFC in > any way.
That's not integration, that's bundling with some cleanups. Let call a cat a cat. > Secondly, even if&when we do propose to integrate it more tightly - > it's debatable whether it constitutes a language change that requires > a 2/3 majority. Even though I'm sure that if we manage to show > substantial benefits from doing that in the future well get a lot more > than 67% in favor... Please do not get me wrong, I was the 1st to propose a tight integration in a 2nd phase, and to push as much resources as we can to get o+ tested and ready in time. However it does not mean that I can or will simply say yes to any kind of move just because an opcode cache being bundled is uber sexy. It is, but that's not a small step and that's something that has to be done the right way, by all means. About debating if something is tightly integrated or enabled by default, phar is one of the examples causing issues even if one does not use it. To think about having a similar case at the engine level is not something I want to take softly but carefully. On a good news side, recent fixes solved a couple of issues we got during testing (thanks Dmitry). One critical remains, Matt will post a summary later today. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
