Hi! > Generally, I'm all for moving unmaintained extensions to PECL. > However, I wonder on what information the concrete selection of > unmaintained extensions in the RFC is based. If it is > php-src/EXTENSIONS, the RFC is moot, in my opinion, as this file is > grossly out-dated. It seems that
I don't see how it makes it moot, unless that means we actually have maintainers for all the extensions but we don't know it. In which case, I think RFC is successful, even if leads to just updating EXTENSIONS. And since we don't really have anything else, at least for now, we would go with the best info we have. As you can see, there's also a need for updating EXTENSIONS and figuring out if the listed maintainers are indeed still active, which will be topic of the followup RFC. > Again, I don't complain that the maintainers are inactive (what is > absolutely fine for me), but rather that php-src/EXTENSIONS is > totally out-dated. True, but that only makes the maintainership status update *more* necessary, not less. > The bug tracker statistics appear to present a somewhat more > realistic view: <https://bugs.php.net/stats.php>. The topmost > bundled extensions having the most unresolved issues are standard, > soap, date, spl and pdo. The XML related extensions (libxml, dom, > simplexml, xml, etc.) also sum up. The problem is not a sheer number of issues, but the question of if there's anybody to take care of them, especially the important ones. E.g. I've had to deal with wddx and exif issues, even though I don't know both formats well enough - because otherwise we'd have security bugs sitting there for a long time. Also we have security issues in mysql that nobody is taking care of, and in FTP, and in libxml, and in FPM, and in other places. -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
