On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Lior Kaplan <lio...@zend.com> wrote:
> Merged requests (past 7 days): > #364 <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/364> fix invalid variable name > at > ext/spl/internal/multipleiterator.inc > #370 <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/370> Remove PWS (Personal Web > Server) references > #377 <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/377> Add built-in web server to > cli usage, and align terminology in cli manpage > #378 <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/378> Fix bug > #62665<https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=62665>: > add curl.cainfo to php.ini > #386 <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/386> Typo fixes > > Thanks Stas for helping these merges happen. > > New (last 7 days): > #384 <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/384> HASH_KEY_NON_EXISTANT typo > fix > #385 <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/385> mssql.compatability_mode > typo fix > #387 <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/387> Wrong value for > FILTER_SANITIZE_FULL_SPECIAL_CHARS > > existing (7-14 days): > #375 <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/375> Fixed bug > #48770<https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=48770>: > when call_user_func() fails to call parent from inheriting class > #381 <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/381> Fixed > #65225<https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=65225>: > PHP_BINARY incorrectly set > #382 <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/382> Added support for not > canonicalizing the SASL realm on sasl_binds for LDAP > > What do you think about closing older PR ( > 28 days) ? > > First off, thanks for all the hard work. PRs aren't getting as much attention as they should, and I'd like to say that I certainly haven't been helping as much as I should with them. What I am noticing though, is that a lot of these newer PRs, or the ones that are getting more attention, seem to be fairly cosmetic changes. I mean, spelling mistakes are all great fixes, and no disrespect to any contribution small or big, but there are certainly a lot of PRs which people have spent a great deal of time working on, clearly, that seem to be getting ignored. If we start closing these strictly because of how long they've been open it would be such a discouragement to everyone who contributed. I sincerely hope this doesn't happen. I'd much rather see people spending more time on reviewing some of the older PRs and seeing if they're worthy of merging or not based on substance rather than just dismiss them based on how long they've been open. I've tried to get in contact with some of the original authors of at least a couple of PRs in the past weeks to see if they were interested in working on an RFC to get their PRs merged as they necessitated some more discussion, but so far have come up empty. So I'll try to help out as much as I can with the ones that can get immediate attention.
