On 29 January 2013 11:23, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Zeev, > > First off, very nice job on the RFC. I definitely like what's happening > here. > > As far as delaying 5.5, I have mixed feelings. I think we should definitely > consider the delay, but only in a time-boxed format. So if we say "1 > month", then if it's not ready to be committed in that month, it doesn't > get in and we release 5.5 anyway. Do you really think a month would be enough (we're talking implementation and really thorough testing)? We're fast approaching beta and the feature freeze, and this is by no means a small feature (correct me if I am mistaken). I think this would very much benefit from the time between releases to get it really thoroughly integrated and tested. Far more eyes will see it, and contribute to it in the time between 5.5 and 5.6 than if it is rushed for 5.5. Stability is king when it comes to adoption, and we really don't need an edge case coming up at the last minute that gives people another reason not to upgrade. In addition, I would suggest putting in a feature freeze for everything > except this feature as well. Not because we shouldn't have new features, > but to prevent another "everyone wants this, so let's delay some more" > feature 1 week before the timebox expires. > That would allow more focused testing and development on this specific feature, but... > Additionally, I don't like the precedent that this sets for future > releases. .. this. There has already been a couple of discussions this week around "rule bending" (voting / bc breaks). I think the release schedule is an important one to stick to. Is it possible to introduce O+ via PECL in the interim?
