George Schlossnagle wrote:
> Using 4.x as a guide, it's around 1 minor release per year.
Why not follow the good example of for instance the GNOME project?
They make 2 minor releases per year (with bugfix release in between) and
have a public release schedule / feature roadmap for each rele
var_dump($someobject); shows only public properties (as I'd expect), but
print_r($someobject) shows all properties (explicitly identifying
protected/private props).
Am I wrong in thinking that's not right?
-Sara
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http
Here's the fix for 28404, someone with ZE karma care to apply?
-Sara
Index: Zend/zend_execute.c
===
RCS file: /repository/ZendEngine2/zend_execute.c,v
retrieving revision 1.644
diff -u -r1.644 zend_execute.c
--- Zend/zend_execute.c 2
It may be worth noting the way MySQL AB has been rolling out MySQL. They
released 4.0.0 as a restructured release, did bug fixes and small changes
up through 4.0.19, and are approaching the release of 4.1 with significant
new features. It sounds like the same might apply here.
~Jason
At 5/18/
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Thanks Andrei. I'm sorry about this mess (I know it's my fault).
> I think it's becoming clear things are being held back because of the 5.0
> release. As I mentioned I also have some work I'm holding back.
> I suggest so that we make sure that things are
Thanks Andrei. I'm sorry about this mess (I know it's my fault).
I think it's becoming clear things are being held back because of the 5.0
release. As I mentioned I also have some work I'm holding back.
I suggest so that we make sure that things aren't being held back for too
long we plan on rele
Greetings,
There is a new draft of the MySQL FLOSS license exception that is
available for public review at
http://zak.greant.com:/licensing/getfile/licensing/FLOSS-
exception.txt?v=1.4
MySQL is actively seeking input on the process of reviewing and
drafting this document. If you have inp
> It's not a big deal either way we go. If everyone is ok with the fact
that
> this was a one time slip and there aren't going to be any other feature
> additions, small or big, so be it.
>
Long as it doesn't become a habbit :)
> I think that in order to prevent PHP 5.0 lingering to oblivion, we
It's reverted. Hope everyone's happy.
- Andrei
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Sara Golemon wrote:
> Let me respond by saying there wasn't a big deal. I asked if this was too
> late in the RC cycle to justify a non-critical exception to the feature
> freeze. The response of "Andi/Zeev okayed it" was fine. But now you're
> standing there telling me that
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Given the number of pending features various people want to add, perhaps now
> is the time for the 5.1 branch where all the new features can go to and if
> some prove to be stable and reliable. Then perhaps they can be introduced in
> 5.0.1, which w
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> This is why I allowed important features in despite the feature freeze.
> However, it doesn't mean that unimportant stuff should go in as much as
> people want because otherwise we can't make a good release. I don't think
> open-source is about adding e
At 22:49 17/05/2004, George Schlossnagle wrote:
Using 4.x as a guide, it's around 1 minor release per year.
Waiting a month or two for a feature seems completely reasonable.
Waiting a year for it seems onerous.
4.x is completely irrelevant, because we only switched to the approach that
3rd digit r
At 20:16 17/05/2004, George Schlossnagle wrote:
On May 17, 2004, at 1:08 PM, Wez Furlong wrote:
IMO, if we're going to be strict with the feature freeze, Andi/Zeev should
have said no in the first place, rather than allowing it to be committed and
then asking for it to be reverted.
Erm, we're human
Using 4.x as a guide, it's around 1 minor release per year.
Waiting a month or two for a feature seems completely reasonable.
Waiting a year for it seems onerous.
George
On May 17, 2004, at 3:41 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I agree with everything Sara says.
So we delay it for a few months, what's th
I agree with everything Sara says.
So we delay it for a few months, what's the big deal there?
There are several features that we want to insert to PHP 5 but are not
because of the feature freeze (realpath cache, TSRM updates,
etc.). There'll be plenty of reasons to go for 5.1 pretty much immedi
But what separates an import feature from a slightly less important one? One
hand adding self contained function would not affect any of the code outside
of the function, so why not add it. That said, this function may introduce
new bugs and further delay the already much overdue release.
We may
Hi Guys,
Just a quick update on the 4.3.X tree, we have close to 25 fixes in the CVS at
this point and we might as well start ball rolling as far as making 4.3.7.
I'd would like to release the RC1 of 4.3.7 this Thursday, so if you have any
pending bug fixes please commit them. If you need more
This is why I allowed important features in despite the feature freeze.
However, it doesn't mean that unimportant stuff should go in as much as
people want because otherwise we can't make a good release. I don't think
open-source is about adding every single feature at any single point of
time.
> There is no such thing as a feature freeze in PHP land, historically.
> And that minor bug has already been fixed.
>
Oh what wonderful news, that means I can start commit patches again! Let's
see, I've got that source binding patch for the network stuff, I've got
those compression filters that I
Hey,
Definitely not a year. There are some features I'd like to work on right
after 5.0 but which I haven't done because of the feature freeze and the
possibility of affecting stability. I think if we open a 5.1 branch close
after releasing 5.0 we can probably release something within three mont
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Sara Golemon wrote:
> > Sure it's been inconsistently applied, but that doesn't mean that striving
> > for consistency is inherently bad. It's especially "not bad" when the
> > initial implementation of the exception in question is
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Sara Golemon wrote:
> Sure it's been inconsistently applied, but that doesn't mean that striving
> for consistency is inherently bad. It's especially "not bad" when the
> initial implementation of the exception in question is incompatable with one
> of the officially recommend
> > Personally, I'm +1 on this patch getting in PHP 5.0.0, as it is an
> > excellent
> > companion to the additional ini directory scan stuff.
>
> Feature freeze has always been highly inconsistently applied. There
> are plenty of functions added/augmented in point-releases of php4.
> This sudden
ive noticed in all the OOP extensions callbacks for properties that the
"member" (property name) is not guaranteed to be a string zval.
is there a reason for this, given that any other type should have choked the
lexer in the first place ? even if not, then can the casting be done in the
engine as
On May 17, 2004, at 1:08 PM, Wez Furlong wrote:
IMO, if we're going to be strict with the feature freeze, Andi/Zeev
should
have said no in the first place, rather than allowing it to be
committed and
then asking for it to be reverted.
Personally, I'm +1 on this patch getting in PHP 5.0.0, as it
IMO, if we're going to be strict with the feature freeze, Andi/Zeev should
have said no in the first place, rather than allowing it to be committed and
then asking for it to be reverted.
Personally, I'm +1 on this patch getting in PHP 5.0.0, as it is an excellent
companion to the additional ini di
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > I guess it would be around a year, and yes, that's a long time to wait
> > for a new feature.
>
> Whatever happened to "release early, release often" philosophy? I can't,
> no, I refuse to believe that we
> This problem noticed in HEAD with pgsql extension for example. When loaded
> via php.ini it does not function since it thinks that the maximum number
of
> connections is exhausted. None of the other php.ini settings seem to be
> registered.
Actually, it neither gets loaded with dl() call.
That
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
> I guess it would be around a year, and yes, that's a long time to wait
> for a new feature.
Whatever happened to "release early, release often" philosophy? I can't,
no, I refuse to believe that we have to wait another year to get a new
feature out.
- A
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> > Yeah I think Zeev is probably right, especially as I don't think we need
> > more than one more RC before we release.
> > Andrei, do you mind if we revisit this after 5.0?
>
> How long will 5.1 take after 5.
On Sun, 16 May 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Yeah I think Zeev is probably right, especially as I don't think we need
> more than one more RC before we release.
> Andrei, do you mind if we revisit this after 5.0?
How long will 5.1 take after 5.0 is release? A month? A year?
- Andrei
--
PHP Inter
Two things:
(1) If all you're doing is outputting, go for php_printf() rather than the
php://stdout or php://output stream. It avoids the need to open additional
streams and makes sure that your extension won't have problems compiling
against pre-4.3 versions of PHP.
(2) You've got code defined
Hi,
I've been looking at the PHP streams source code. I wondered if you could
help with this problem i've got with a PHP extension. Any help with this
would be very much appreciated!
What I want to do is create a php extension which parses php code to the
interpreter. e.g. the php script usi
Hi,
This problem noticed in HEAD with pgsql extension for example. When loaded
via php.ini it does not function since it thinks that the maximum number of
connections is exhausted. None of the other php.ini settings seem to be
registered.
Could this be related to the patch preventing loading ext
Hi:
Sorry. Poted to wrong list.
Duh,
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
data intensive web and database programming
http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/
4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 04:05:07PM +1000, Aidan Lister wrote:
> Is there anything this package does that quickform doesn't?
Beats me. All I know is that it's light weight and is used by pearweb.
While QuickForm is much larger and used by pearweb too.
HTML_Form seems to be widely used, with over
XOOPS,PEAR CODEING
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
PHP 4 Bug Database summary - http://bugs.php.net
Num Status Summary (786 total including feature requests)
===[*Compile Issues]==
28364 Feedback libphp4.so not generated even though makes worked
28385 Open $(prefix)/lib/php/buil
39 matches
Mail list logo
