Home > Archive > PHP PEAR Questions and Answers > July 2006 > Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: [PEAR] [ANNOUNCEMENT] File_Find-1.3.0 (stable)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: [PEAR-QA] Re: [PEAR] [ANNOUNCEMENT] File_Find-1.3.0 (stable)
|
|
| Arnaud Limbourg 2006-07-04, 6:04 pm |
| Justin Patrin wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2006 20:48:26 -0000, PEAR Announce <pear-dev@lists.php.net>
> wrote:
>
> This sounds suspiciously like a BC break.
Anatoly, care to enlighten what can be "inconsistent" ?
Arnaud.
| |
| Arnaud Limbourg 2006-07-04, 6:04 pm |
| I understand your point but you are changing a default behaviour to
which people were used so I'm not so sure it is a good thing.
Arnaud.
techtonik wrote:
> Earlier File_Find was trying to normalize the slashes to system native
> DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR and remove doubled ones. However, this happened to
> be harmful for streams on windows because of evilness of backslash
> DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR in URL and on other systems because double slash
> in prefix was stripped. So, default behavior now is to leave
> slash/backslash beauty operations to to user - package itself will try
> to always use forward slash prefix.
>
> On 7/1/06, Arnaud Limbourg <arnaud@limbourg.com> wrote:
>
>
| |
| Lukas Smith 2006-07-04, 6:04 pm |
| techtonik wrote:
> Sorry, I do not have too much the time to waste for discussions on
> summer w ends. It is a pity you do not have trust to developers.
> First carefully examine what was done and how it affects end users. I
> lack the goodness to hide the possible drawbacks and I can name many
> introspection methods that could be ruined even if you modification is
> plain API addition. So every package release makes BC break. I do not
> have time to make it optional and I convinced that it was rare buggy
> and incorrect behavior introduced in version 1.2.0. Package must be
> system independent by default. If you not agree - feel free to fix it
> in the sources. My free time donation and geed mood is depleted.
The person that is lacking trust is you.
All we said is that this my be a BC break. To quote myself "Yeah sounds
like the type of improvement that should be handled via an option that
defaults to off." However you seem to imply that we are uninterested in
hearing your explanation. Open source is about peer review.
In my last reply I explained that a bugfix is legimitate. So all you
have to say is that previously the affected methods were unusable (on
all platforms). If that however is not the case than its a BC break if
the new behavior breaks existing code.
regards,
Lukas
|
|
|
|
|