Re: PDO Oracle driver

Peter, I did not know about the documentation part, thanks for clearing that out. I would like to ask though, what is the benefit of having the dead extensions there? From my point of view, it does more harm than good having them in the manual (I am only referring here to extensions that never got to a production grade). On marking the extension as dead, how would we proceed in this case? Thank you, Stelian On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 22 April 2015 at 11:24, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> cc-ing doc list >> >> On 22 April 2015 at 10:40, Stelian Mocanita <stelian.mocanita@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello internals, >>> >>> I would like to ask what on your thoughts on removing the Oracle drive >>> for >>> PDO from the documentation (http://us1.php.net/manual/en/ref.pdo-oci.php >>> ) >>> at least since it's been experimental for a long time now, and it has >>> long >>> standing open bugs, such as: >>> >> > From the documentation point of view: > > Just because an extension is considered experimental, or indeed > unmaintained, is no reason to remove the extension from the manual. We > have a bunch of extensions marked as experimental [1] or dead [2] and I > don't see why pdo_oci should be any different. > > >> >>> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=37706 >>> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46728 >>> https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=60994 >>> >>> I know that the extension is marked as experimental already but based on >>> the current status, it's not even that and a significant amount of basic >>> functionality is broken. >>> >> > Let's mark the extension as "dead" in the manual, as we do with other dead > extensions. > > >> >>> Regards, >>> Stelian >>> >> >> > [1] bcompiler, blenc, dbplus, haru, memtrack, ming, paradox, pdo_4d, > pdo_oci, sca, sdodasrel, spl_types, svn, swish, vpopmail, xmlrpc > [2] classkit, fam, fdf, iisfunc, msession, nis, session_pgsql >