On Jul 9, 2016 3:19 PM, "Leigh" <lei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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.
I am sorry but this PR possibly breaks BC and cases have been clearly explained how and why. Asking to show production code publically is not something that you should request. I can write a sample app to show you how but given the explanations many gave already.... > 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.
