On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > It was a plan in the past, I think we should just do it - now.
>
> If you mean moving the directory from pecl to ext/ - that's fine as
> long as maintainers commit to keeping it in shape (last time, I
> remember, 5.4 support was lagging). If you mean
Hi!
> It was a plan in the past, I think we should just do it - now.
If you mean moving the directory from pecl to ext/ - that's fine as long
as maintainers commit to keeping it in shape (last time, I remember, 5.4
support was lagging). If you mean more tight integration - see my
previous email w
Hi!
> While I do see your point, to me it's less of an issue that it breaks
> APC, and more of an issue that APC's functionality is not in core.
You are confusing specific extension with functionality. The problem is
not that specific extension (APC) is not in core, but that the proposal
makes fu
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> > Rasmus wrote:
> >
> > > This is my worry as well. Especially when it comes to opcode cache
> > > support. Most of the patches I see these days completely ignore the
> > > opcode cache side of
On 01/09/2013 09:03 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Rasmus
>
>
> This is my worry as well. Especially when it comes to opcode cache
> support. Most of the patches I see these days completely ignore the
> opcode cache side of things which needs to change. For any large
> language-leve
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Rasmus wrote:
>
> > This is my worry as well. Especially when it comes to opcode cache
> > support. Most of the patches I see these days completely ignore the
> > opcode cache side of things which needs to change. For any large
> > language-level ch
