Hello Markus,
the question alone makes me question if it was worth the effort starting
it :-)
best regards
marcus
Friday, May 19, 2006, 11:23:32 PM, you wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> Is there an "UPGRADING 5.1 to 5.2"? I think there it would make sense, too.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is there an "UPGRADING 5.1 to 5.2"? I think there it would make sense, too.
- - Markus
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file.
>
>
> On 19-May-06, at 11:00 AM, Brian Moon wrote:
>
>> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>>> S
Brian Moon wrote:
> Phil Driscoll wrote:
>> Please add and/subtract to/from the above lists.
>
> MediaWiki
[snip]
>
> Those are the big in their space. We use MediaWiki daily in our company.
We're already testers.
Note that MediaWiki uses few (if any) $_POST arrays, so we encountered no
proble
Cool. I just had a horrible vision of hundreds of reports of 'strange
crashes' :)
When E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR is triggers and not handled, it gets translated
to an E_ERROR "Catchable fatal error...".
On 19-May-06, at 12:10 PM, Steph Fox wrote:
Back to my original (off-list) question - what h
When E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR is triggers and not handled, it gets
translated to an E_ERROR "Catchable fatal error...".
On 19-May-06, at 12:10 PM, Steph Fox wrote:
Back to my original (off-list) question - what happens if people
don't have E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR level error reporting switched on?
Back to my original (off-list) question - what happens if people don't have
E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR level error reporting switched on? Does it fall back to
E_ERROR or does the code fail silently?
I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file.
On 19-May-06, at 11:00 AM, Brian Moon wrote:
Ili
I'll add a note about it to the 5.2 README file.
On 19-May-06, at 11:00 AM, Brian Moon wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
So the only affect is that value numeric value of E_ALL is greater
then it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to this
affect a few days ago (Thanks!).
This need
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
So the only affect is that value numeric value of E_ALL is greater then
it was before. Marcus has already applied patch to this affect a few
days ago (Thanks!).
This needs to be made obvious in the release notes or something. Users
that set their error level in apache
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Phil,
Based on past experience in dealing with primary testers we usually
only get responses when things go bad, as such waiting for positive
responses until rolling the final is not practical in my opinion. I
think the best I can propose is that we give testers at
Phil,
Based on past experience in dealing with primary testers we usually
only get responses when things go bad, as such waiting for positive
responses until rolling the final is not practical in my opinion. I
think the best I can propose is that we give testers at least one
week to try t
I'd like to thank everyone for voting on the topic and making their
opinions known. The conclusion is that:
E_STRICT will not be a part of E_ALL, however E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR
will be, this means no "new" errors will appear for current user, as
E_RECOVERABLE_ERROR is similar to what E_ERROR w
11 matches
Mail list logo
