On 7/19/06, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Pierre wrote:
> On 7/18/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Pierre,
> >
> > Will all due respect, option C is what we did when it came to 5.1, except
> > instead of 5.3 it was 5.2. Sure, we can delay this indefinitely, but I for
> > one would like some resolution on the issue. But if the general consensus is
> > to continue treading water, I guess we can do that too...
>
> It is the less worst solution. We give a delay to our users to adapt
> their code and consider a migration.
Well, you could already have started that in December as you simply knew
this was going to come up again. If you (pear, not pierre) want to keep
sticking the head in the sand that is fine, but don't come with comments
like the above then in order to delay perfectly good code that people
want.
You keep don't understand how long it takes to decide and write a RFC
for a large project like PEAR.
It is easy to start a project from scratch and say, "See I use
prefix", it is not easy to do it with a seven years old project. It is
also not easy to get things done nicelly with you commiting widely
before each release but don't say a word about that before or after.
Anyway, everything has been said. I made my point, you don't
understand or don't want understand it.
--Pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
