Re: phar concerns? (was Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php-src /ext/bz2 bz2_filter.c)

Hello all. On 15.02.2009 09:35, Greg Beaver wrote: > I've heard enough bad-mouthing of ext/phar, and now of my character, > that I will bow out of developing for PHP if this is what is desired. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly do not want you to bow out. Furthermore, I can say that I do not agree with Hannes when it comes to "fitness to handle an extension" and his attitude, which is clearly wrong and doesn't belong to this or any other list. He said it himself - he's way too Finnish =) I'm now really sorry for starting this thread - I should have fixed the freaking dots myself, but I was just a bit surprised to see them after we've been fighting them for quite a while. Sorry again. > I would agree (and have in the past) if the facts support this. I think > phar is not ready to be enabled on big-endian systems until the issues > Scott discovered can be worked out. A quick scan of the bugs database > reveals that phar's bug rates are comparable to other newly enabled > extensions (such as fileinfo), and a severe drop-off in bugs reported > since October, with more build bugs (.m4 problems, Makefile.frag > problems) as people build phar on other systems. All of this suggests > to me a strong stabilization of phar, not a serious problem, but if > there is some information not yet reported to the bug tracker, then we > need to report these bugs. I can't fix things if I don't know about them. Having said what I just said, I would really like to see Phar to get some more QA and attention in general before enabling it by default in a release. I don't think it's correct to compare Phar and fileinfo (or any other extension) as Phar is the only one that is able break the whole thing even if one doesn't know about it (or use it). > I happen to believe that in fact the work I do is actually useful to > PHP Yes, it surely is. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal