Re: PECL vs. CORE .... was msession

+1. Except EXPERIMENTAL ones. If an extension belongs in the CORE, it makes no sense to stuff it in PECL and then move back to core once EXPERIMENTAL status is dropped. Vlad Shane Caraveo wrote:

I would like reinstatement of msession into the main tree, and if you oppose I would like a serious discussion to take place on the developer list. If you support it, I need you to sound in on the discussion. Well, I feel like 80%, if not more, of the extensions should move to PECL, leaving only the bare essential extensions, and only those that are cross-platform. There are 111 extensions in the main php distribution, it's gotten way out of hand. If it were my choice the following would happen: Move to PECL: all non-cross-platform extensions all 'product' specific extensions (cybercash, midgard, etc.) legacy db extensions all extensions marked EXPERIMENTAL any undocumented extensions exceptions would be made for 'major' technologies like ODBC and COM, and those extensions required to install other extensions (zlib, xmlrpc, etc.). Binary distributions would contain certain extensions from PECL, for example the win32api extension, which realy shouldn't be in the primary distribution, but should be in the win32 binary distribution. Getting a new extension into the core should be very hard, and essentialy reviewed by the release manager and the major active developers. My opinion on this is nothing personal towards you, and I do think the move to PECL was handled incorrectly, but I'm not convinced it should be in the core distribution. I've spent lots of hours coding things I feel are very important, but that does not equal being important to a core distribution of a given project. Shane

-- -- Vlad Krupin Software Engineer echospace.com