Re: Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2(PHP_5_0) / zend_execute_API.c php-src NEWS
| From: | Zeev Suraski | Date: | Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:38:56 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2(PHP_5_0) / zend_execute_API.c php-src NEWS | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-13949@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
At 21:44 24/11/2004, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Derick, Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 5:02:32 PM, you wrote: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Edin Kadribasic wrote:I disagree, I think we actually released it quite a bit too late. The far-beyond-my-prediction adoption rate of PHP 5 attests to that, in my opinion. People need it, and they need it now (many of them not because of the OO features at all, but because of the better XML, SOAP, MySQL, etc. support in there).depends on theI have to agree with this. The concept of PECL windows binariesversions. Ifact that PHP extensions are binary compatible among patchlevelresponsibleguess authors of propriatory PHP extensions would face the same problem. If we absolutely need to fix this, prior to 5.1.0 release the onlyI would be against the latter, so IMO we should return the signature to the previous version. I agree here and to me the issue just proves that we released 5.0 far to early.thing to do would be to rename 5.0.3 -> to 5.1.0 and move HEAD branch to 5.2.0.
And i don't like to change because the things i am doing rely on this "FIX".I imagined this would be the case, but what do you suggest? We can't change the signature without actually restoring binary compatibility, and there's more or less consensus that we need to revert. If you need that patch so badly the only solutions I can think of is using 5.1 or maintaining a separate patch... Zeev