Re: Re: ZendEngine2 / zend_ini_parser.y zend_ini_scanner.l

This is why I allowed important features in despite the feature freeze. However, it doesn't mean that unimportant stuff should go in as much as people want because otherwise we can't make a good release. I don't think open-source is about adding every single feature at any single point of time. The result would be horrible instability (not that I think your patch fits into this category I'm just saying that even open-source projects need some care). Anyway, due to your patch being pretty much self-contained I thought it wouldn't be a big deal to introduce it. However, thinking it over, I don't think it's a crucial enough patch to force it in. I doubt you see it this way too. What's another 3-4 months going to do? People managed without it up to now. Andi At 11:27 AM 5/17/2004 -0700, Andrei Zmievski wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004, Andrei Zmievski wrote: On Mon, 17 May 2004, Sara Golemon wrote:

Sure it's been inconsistently applied, but that doesn't mean that

striving

for consistency is inherently bad. It's especially "not bad" when the initial implementation of the exception in question is incompatable

with one

of the officially recommended set of build tools (bison 1.75 -- see: http://www.php.net/anoncvs.php ) and breaks the Win32 snap generation. Granted that's a minor bug, but it's a perfect illustration of why a

feature

freeze exists.

There is no such thing as a feature freeze in PHP land, historically. And that minor bug has already been fixed. Let me add to this: isn't this what "open source" is about? The bug did not manifest itself on my system (FreeBSD). You pointed out the issue. I fixed it. Cooperation prevailed. What's the big deal? - Andrei -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php