Re: [INTERNALS-WIN] Sorry for the intrusion, but...

Hi Rob,

> Sorry, I've had a system outage for past 5 days so wasn't getting mail - 
> thank god its finally fixed. You should have gotten bounce backs sending 
> to me.

Ouf, what a time for that to happen!

>> Personally I'd rather have it error out if libxml is missing and xml 
>> extensions relying on it are intended to be part of that build.
>
> As you point out it is personal preference.

I was being sarcastic...

> I've had long discussions about this with a number of people as I too was 
> of that opinion originally. There is sense to the madness as it is nice to 
> know everything that is missing rather than having to keep running 
> configure to find them all.

OK, you lost me now. In what way don't we know everything that is missing? 
What does this function abuse provide that normal usage does not?

> I see no harm in this piece of code, nor the flag. It can be leveraged 
> until CMake is ready.

Thank you.

> That BS. I am sick and tired of hearing that crap.

Not crap, just plain truth. Get the engine working, make it possible to test 
in HEAD and I will happily work in HEAD. In the meantime, blind merging 
actually makes things worse.

> Things should be going to HEAD first

Things ought to be, yes, but the whole point of having a development branch 
is that you test new things there. Since that isn't possible at present, I 
don't view HEAD as a development branch.

 and why would you be committing
> untested code in the first place?

See above. I'm not committing untested code, but everyone currently 
committing to HEAD probably is.

> If you don't want to commit changes to HEAD when committing stuff to other 
> branches then don't bother committing at all. All you end up doing is 
> making things more difficult for the rest of us.

How is it making things more difficult for the rest of you? I have things 
for ext/phar and bits and bobs for the win32 build. The latter has changed 
dramatically over the last few weeks for no good reason I can see, and the 
former really isn't your problem. When we finally get to the point of 
whatever it is you want the dependencies stuff to do that it doesn't already 
do, sure, that'll be merge-worthy. In the meantime I still don't know why 
obfuscating the extension config files is such a great plan.

- Steph