RE: [PHP-DEV] php.exe - php-cgi.exe

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Andi Gutmans wrote: > At 05:34 PM 12/9/2002 +0100, Marcus Börger wrote: > >At 14:52 09.12.2002, Mike Robinson wrote: > >>Wez Furlong writes: > >> > >>On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Mike Robinson wrote: > >> > > Sorry. There's just no way this should happen. > >> > >> > But it has happened, and it's going stay this way. > >> > > >> > Now, if you don't have anything positive to contribute, > >> > please stop stirring up threads like this (again) without > >> > first understanding the issues behind them. It just wastes > >> > time, which is better spent developing, bug fixing, > >> > documenting - doing just about anything else is more productive. > >> > >>You are correct in your assumption that I have difficulty > >>understanding the issues behind this change. After asking several > >>times for an explanation, and after having gone over the archives > >>to find some related discussion (and asking for pointers to that > >>as well), I came to conclusion that this change is totally wrong. > >>This change has nothing to do with fixing anything. It's breaking > >>BC in a huge way, at the historical level, for the sake of a minor > >>convenience for a very small group of users. > >> > >>Throwing lame excuses at it, like "it's evolution", doesn't cut > >>it with me. I'm still at the same place. This is just wrong. It > >>has nothing to do with stirring anything up. > >> > >>Regards > >>Mike Robinson > > > >What do you want then? For historical reasons you will allow > >us only to introduce total new functionality and bug fixes? No > >more improvements that will have any influence on some working > >systems out there? Then i'll answer stay where you are and do > >not do any version upgrade.... > > > >"evolution" is not an excuse here. We want to use PHP on the > >command line and many people will do also. And we make the > >command line usage as easy as possible. Even if that requires > >some mauals being updated and marking some bug reports as > >bogus. > > <ducking> > Maybe phpsh would be a good idea for the name of the CLI? It wouldn't > confuse ppl as much as php-cli > </ducking> > > I'm really not that sure it makes sense to rename the CGI from php to > php-cgi after such a long time. It's not as if we're breaking BC for the > sake of adding very much needed functionality. > > Anyway, I'm -0 for the change and +0 to find a more suitable name for the > CLI :) Excellent idea, Andi. +1 on phpsh, -1 on renaming CGI. - Stig