Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: svn: /php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/ README.NEW-OUTPUT-API Zend/zend_highlight.c Zend/zend_indent.c ext/iconv/iconv.c ext/session/session.c ext/soap/soap.c ext/standard/basic_function

2010-03-11 Thread Lukas Kahwe Smith
On 11.03.2010, at 13:27, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: Johannes Schlüter wrote: Merging such major changes in a released branch like 5.3 is no option. +1 +1 .. and not getting the agreement before committing it is also pretty low. but i guess you knew that. at the same time i know that it

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: svn: /php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/ README.NEW-OUTPUT-API Zend/zend_highlight.c Zend/zend_indent.c ext/iconv/iconv.c ext/session/session.c ext/soap/soap.c ext/standard/basic_function

2010-03-11 Thread Sebastian Bergmann
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: php6 not moving forward is the root cause there So lets just close the PHP 5.2 branch and open the PHP 5.4 branch. The focus of PHP 5.4 could be the new output layer and traits (one can dream, right?). -- Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: svn: /php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/ README.NEW-OUTPUT-API Zend/zend_highlight.c Zend/zend_indent.c ext/iconv/iconv.c ext/session/session.c ext/soap/soap.c ext/standard/basic_function

2010-03-11 Thread Jani Taskinen
On 03/11/2010 02:38 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: php6 not moving forward is the root cause there So lets just close the PHP 5.2 branch and open the PHP 5.4 branch. The focus of PHP 5.4 could be the new output layer and traits (one can dream, right?). I'm not

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: svn: /php/php-src/branches/PHP_5_3/ README.NEW-OUTPUT-API Zend/zend_highlight.c Zend/zend_indent.c ext/iconv/iconv.c ext/session/session.c ext/soap/soap.c ext/standard/basic_function

2010-03-11 Thread Derick Rethans
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: php6 not moving forward is the root cause there So lets just close the PHP 5.2 branch and open the PHP 5.4 branch. The focus of PHP 5.4 could be the new output layer and traits (one can dream, right?). No, put