http://svn.php.net/
This URL, accessible both by web browser and Subversion clients, now
contains the current revision of the converted CVS repository.
At the moment there is NO authorization or authentication scheme in
place; the repository is limited to read-only access. I would like to
This is a dangerous comment. Again to make it clear, with a single
separator, whatever it may we, we will still have ambiguity. Only with
two different separators as Greg describes can we really solve this
problem. But yes, we I presume what you mean to say is that if we want to
improve the si
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:06 -0500, Greg Beaver wrote:
> I agree with Liz's appraisal of setting up docs for documenting. This
> could actually be solved with a minimal VMWare appliance that is
> pre-setup with everything we need to do the docs (not sure how hard that
> is to do). VMware works gre
2008/10/3 Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 03.10.2008, at 16:02, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
>> PHP 5.2.7 is long overdue already. Propably due to the RM being AWOL for
>> quite long time. There are several fixes in 5.2.7 that should be out there
>> yesterday. If the current RM is not inter
Mikko Koppanen wrote:
That Ilia's comment is bullshit. PHP_5_2 is not "critical fixes only"
branch. It's normal bug fix branch til the day PHP 5.3 is released. We can
reconsider it's status once there is 5.3.1 available.
Committed, closed bug and updated NEWS.
You are excellent. ;)
--Jani
Greg Beaver wrote:
This is a bit amusing to read if one takes a step back :). You should
know that there is quite a wide variety of opinions amongst internals
developers about the importance of functions vs. classes. One
interesting point is that none of the internals developers I know who
use
On 03.10.2008, at 16:02, Jani Taskinen wrote:
PHP 5.2.7 is long overdue already. Propably due to the RM being AWOL
for quite long time. There are several fixes in 5.2.7 that should be
out there yesterday. If the current RM is not interested in releases
anymore, I can take over.
I guess
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 02.10.2008, at 14:27, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
No, its for security or "critical" fixes only. I'd say that a crash
inside a key area of the code is critical...
Hmmh.. Does this mean that 5.2 is dead and all the unreleased 5.2 NEWS
entries should be moved to 5_3?
> That Ilia's comment is bullshit. PHP_5_2 is not "critical fixes only"
> branch. It's normal bug fix branch til the day PHP 5.3 is released. We can
> reconsider it's status once there is 5.3.1 available.
Committed, closed bug and updated NEWS.
--
Mikko Koppanen
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
On 02.10.2008, at 14:27, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
No, its for security or "critical" fixes only. I'd say that a crash
inside a key area of the code is critical...
Hmmh.. Does this mean that 5.2 is dead and all the unreleased 5.2
NEWS
entries should be moved to 5_3?
Just to give persp
Mikko Koppanen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Jani Taskinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems like a perfectly valid bug fix, how about merge to PHP_5_2 too?
(and close the bug #14032 too..)
I will close the bug and update NEWS file. I am not sure about
committing to PHP_5_2 after re
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should probably get this one fixed before 5.3
>
> http://bugs.php.net/46222
>
> Although it is also in 5.2 and people seem to have survived. It's really
> weird though.
I'll take a look at it.
Regards
>
> -Rasm
12 matches
Mail list logo
