On Nov 23, 2015, at 15:05, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > >> On 23 בנוב׳ 2015, at 14:04, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> wrote: >> >> >> No one is expecting 0.0 or any version to be bug free, but the simplicity of >> the fix says nothing about the seriousness of the bug. I think it quite >> serious _because_ we are a few days from GA, had this been found a month ago >> it wouldn't seem so serious. >> > > No, but both the seriousness of the bug AND the simplicity of the fix sit > squarely outside any sort of "critical" definition. > > The bug simply has the unfortunate connotation of being associated with > arrays, but is not - it's only about count()ing symbol tables. The fix > itself is very localized too and was peer reviewed, so I don't feel as if > we'd be living on the edge of we'd be releasing without an extra RC. > > My main concern is that of we're treating this issue as a semi blocker - it's > almost unthinkable we won't find something of similar (small) magnitude in > the next seven days. That's my only concern with releasing next week,m. > Would people here again demand to delay, even if the impact is very limited - > as is the case with this count() issue? If it wasn't for that concern, I'd > probably be in favor of delaying.
I think this was mostly a PR failure on my part actually. If I/we are a bit more careful about how we handle similar issues and the people lurking with itchy Twitter trigger fingers would spend a bit more time looking into the details we should all be able to get along and get a good launch with no controversy on Dec.3. -Rasmus
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
