On Jul 9, 2016 3:49 PM, "Pierre Joye" <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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....
Btw, no matter what will be the default mode, please include a clear explanation in UPGRADING with reference to the implementation being now used for mt and about what has changed. Doing so will ensure (more or less) that users know what changed or know what to do to get the previous behavior when desired.
