On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 at 08:48 Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I voted no then as it is clear that you do not see a problem to > break codes without a single warning or time to adapt before. > > The other sections are fine and voted yes. > For the part where you voted no. Still nobody has presented (publicly available) source that makes legitimate use of mt_srand (yes it's mt_srand that is "broken" here, not mt_rand) for deterministic streams of random numbers. I can only assume by this that almost nobody does. However, for those that do, they can still use the old algorithm. For all of the other sections where you voted yes, they are mostly bug fixes, but all change the output of mt_rand AND more functions (without a single warning, like you wanted). I'm not trying to encourage you to change any votes, but I need to make sure you understand what you're voting for.
