Re: Re: PHP 5.1 (Or How to break tousands of apps out there)

This one's a bit more annoying than usual ;) It will basically break application that depends on the Date package (eg. most of my code as DataObjects uses it internally).. Do we really need another barrier to upgrade to 5.*? Regards Alan On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 07:55 +0100, Pierre wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:23:17 -0800 > rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf) wrote: > > > Pierre, I agree with you that it was a bad idea to turn on the stub > > date class in the final release candidate giving people less than a > > week to notice that we now conflict with a common pear class. We get > > all the breakage and none of the benefits and nobody had any time to > > prepare the pear side of the house for this. It also sucks that not > > a single pear person tested the final RC and brought this up in the > > past week. There is plenty of blame to go around here. > > No, do not blame anyone but the one who commited the change and the one > who agreed. > > Do not expect me neither to come up with any complaints, you know how > it ends when I try. > > > Longer term we have to be able to move functionality from pear to > > php. That's one of the reasons pear exists. You can argue all you > > want over whose date implementation is better. In the end code > > speaks. > > Wrong, in the end the one who commits without giving a single shit to > anyone wins, in this case, Derick. You can argue or say all rethoric > you have about code, commits, contribution or cooperation, facts are > that from day #1 the game is biased. If I did not ask and simply commit > my code in 5.0 branche, It would have gave two possible things: > > - I lost my karma > - my code will be already in 5.0 > > Conclusion? I have to be an ass and do what I want, not what other > could expect. > > > I know you don't want to write any code unless you are sure > > it will be the chosen implementation, and I don't think you ever > > managed to convince everyone of the $date->m++ style of date > > manipulation. > > I proposed, I convinced people (read the archive if you do not > remember), but my way was too nice and slow for Derick. > > > Not that this really matters, in the end what matters > > is actual working code. We will choose inferior working code over > > the perfect half-finished implementation every time. So, if as you > > say it will only take you an hour to implement, please do it so we > > can try it. > > What I say it is I need one hour to implement a brain dead OO interface > like this one around this API. > > And what really matters anyway? > > > --Pierre >