Re: Prefixing names of new filter functions with filter_

On 15-Sep-06, at 5:07 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:

As I said, I completely understand that you are frustrated. I did not review the ext/filter APIs and I guess many others didn't either, so I like others take blame for waking up too late. I guess that's the nature of open-source projects, where people wake up a bit too late because they are busy or consumed at the time when things happen. Definitely sucks but as I said, we've woken up in time so let's make the best of it.

While I am unhappy with actions of some people, I don't blame anyone. This is an open source project and everyone does what they can and its perfectly understandable that they would have other commitments that have priority. Blaming one another is not going to be conductive and will not accomplish anything expect get on everyone's nerves, so let's end it at that.

I'm fine with either unsymlinking for 5.2.0 or doing another RC after fixing up the APIs. If we go down the former route, I'd recommend to work towars a 5.2.1 pretty soon because ext/filter is a very important extension and makes a statement that we care about security.

As far as I know there are 3 main developers of the filters extension, Derick, Pierre and Rasmus. If they can agree on a set of changes and implement them within a reasonable amount of time (1-1.5 weeks, as far as I know we're talking about potentially renaming of 6 functions here) then we can probably have another RC or just jump to final directly. Personally, I feel it would be a loss to release 5.2.0 without the filter extension, but there is always the next time. If they feel this is not enough time or the changes needed are far more involved then just renaming of functions and require extensive testing then we need to cut our losses and drop filter from 5.2.0 and wait until the API is finalized before considering including it in the future. Ilia Alshanetsky