Re: [RFC] Move pecl_sync to core

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:18 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com < guilhermeblanco@gmail.com> wrote: > > What does that even mean? > > It means that any new functionality that gets into core could be considered > "young". Like when PHAR got introduced, it was a "young" extension. Same > for PDO, same for FileInfo... > What I'm trying to highlight is that being a recently coded extension or > not, it's not a good argument to say join/no join. > phar is a really bad example, the maintainers left right after it was accepted into the core making it a really bad technical burden, as it tightly integrated into the streams handling and stuff, making it a liability. from the average user POV I think it would be a bit weird why do we add a relatively new package which is at the bottom of the download stats ( http://pecl.php.net/package-stats.php) while not bundling stuff like memcache or mongo which are both mature and used/required by much more people/project. personally I think that a pecl extension needs to have stronger arguments to be bundled with php-src than the fact that it would probably create a bit more exposure for the ext. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu