Rafael Dohms wrote:
2010/3/11 Johannes Schlüter:
On the other hand merging tests to5.2 and 5.3 means that we can find new
BC breaks we had overseen and either fix them or document them properly.
So I won't "waste" too much time but not forget about 5.2.
As much as I agree with the push for
I have attached patches for bug # 50755 on bugs.php.net. These also
cleanup to PDO DBLIB code to have less of a memory footprint and to
prepare for other feature additions such as multiple rowset support.
I have compiled and tested on x86.
Can someone review and provide feedback. PDO devs seem to
2010/3/11 Johannes Schlüter :
>
> On the other hand merging tests to5.2 and 5.3 means that we can find new
> BC breaks we had overseen and either fix them or document them properly.
>
> So I won't "waste" too much time but not forget about 5.2.
>
> johannes
>
>
As much as I agree with the push f
On Mar 11, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
>
> Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>> for 5.3.3 it depends on security issues being reported, bug fixes going
>> in, ... maybe 3 months after.
>
> With the current discussion about moving 6.0 to a branch and continuing the
> develop
Hi Johannes,
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> for 5.3.3 it depends on security issues being reported, bug fixes going
> in, ... maybe 3 months after.
With the current discussion about moving 6.0 to a branch and continuing the
development of 5.4+ in trunk, I was wondering if there is going to be a
cha
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Even though the 5.2 code base is fairly mature, it is far from being bug
> free. Unit tests are often a good way to identify corner cases that may
> not be handled properly even in the stable branches, so more tests IMHO
> is a good thing. Until the decision is made to
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 17:44 -0500, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Even though the 5.2 code base is fairly mature, it is far from being bug
> free. Unit tests are often a good way to identify corner cases that may
> not be handled properly even in the stable branches, so more tests IMHO
> is a good thing
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I'd also like to see us start a slow deprioritization of 5.2 work.
>> Instead effort should go into making 5.3 the prefered stable branch.
>> One specific example is that Test Fest 2010 tests shouldn't be merged
>> to 5.2.
>
> I agree with you on 5.3 in gener
Even though the 5.2 code base is fairly mature, it is far from being bug
free. Unit tests are often a good way to identify corner cases that may
not be handled properly even in the stable branches, so more tests IMHO
is a good thing. Until the decision is made to discontinue the 5.2
branch, which s
Hi!
I'd also like to see us start a slow deprioritization of 5.2 work.
Instead effort should go into making 5.3 the prefered stable branch.
One specific example is that Test Fest 2010 tests shouldn't be merged
to 5.2.
I agree with you on 5.3 in general but I think having more tests in 5.2
wou
Eric Stewart wrote:
> Focusing TestFest on 5.3 was not how I had envisioned TestFest 2010, I was
> operating under the assumption we would be committing all applicable tests
> to 5.2, 5.3 and 6.0 as was done last year. Focusing strictly on 5.3
> certainly makes my job (and others working on Tes
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Christopher Jones <
christopher.jo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> > +1. I think we need we need to make "HEAD" a common use branch where
> > most of the developers trees are at and current HEAD iteration is just
> > not it.
>
> I'm +1. Jani'
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> +1. I think we need we need to make "HEAD" a common use branch where
> most of the developers trees are at and current HEAD iteration is just
> not it.
That's my oppinion as well. Trunk should be a common development
branch. Once we deci
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> +1. I think we need we need to make "HEAD" a common use branch where
> most of the developers trees are at and current HEAD iteration is just
> not it.
I'm +1. Jani's recent 5.3 changes should be reverted, PHP_5_4
rebranched again, and then the fixes/features merged t
+1. I think we need we need to make "HEAD" a common use branch where
most of the developers trees are at and current HEAD iteration is just
not it.
On 10-03-11 12:22 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Ah, Jani went a little crazy today in his typical style to force a
> decision. The real decision is not
On 03/11/2010 12:20 PM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> The main focus should be that we actually start working. And not wait
> for someone to do something miraculous on their own. I'm just sick and
> tired of the cloak and dagger style and secret meetings and committees.
> So please, do the talking openly
On 11.03.2010, at 21:20, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> The main focus should be that we actually start working. And not wait for
> someone to do something miraculous on their own. I'm just sick and tired of
> the cloak and dagger style and secret meetings and committees. So please, do
> the talking o
11.3.2010 19:54, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 18:46 +0100, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
+1 for moving trunk to a branch and moving 5.3 to trunk.
not moving 5.3 to trunk but a 5.3 copy (branched of), 5.3 should be
stable stuff (fixes) only. Guess you meant to say that, but better
11.3.2010 19:22, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
So I think Lukas and others are right, let's move the PHP 6 trunk to a
branch since we are still going to need a bunch of code from it and move
development to trunk and start exploring lighter and more approachable
ways to attack Unicode. We have a few alre
Hi!
I'm all for 5.4, I have a bunch of patches against PHP_5_3 that I
want to commit such a large integer support, I couldn't develop
against HEAD since it's just not usable.
That's interesting (changing the subject :) - how they are implemented,
new zval type or user-space?
--
Stanislav Mal
hi,
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 04:41 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>>
>> @jani: committing to a stable branch because you are getting a new laptop
>> is not really a convincing argument. :)
>
> Losing the one with the changes in it is. Doing patches will
On 11.03.2010, at 18:54, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 18:46 +0100, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>> +1 for moving trunk to a branch and moving 5.3 to trunk.
>
> not moving 5.3 to trunk but a 5.3 copy (branched of), 5.3 should be
> stable stuff (fixes) only. Guess you meant to say
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 18:46 +0100, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> +1 for moving trunk to a branch and moving 5.3 to trunk.
not moving 5.3 to trunk but a 5.3 copy (branched of), 5.3 should be
stable stuff (fixes) only. Guess you meant to say that, but better to be
clear.
johannes
--
PHP Internals -
On Mar 9, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Lee Powers wrote:
> Is short_open_tag set to be removed or deprecated in PHP6? I don't see any
> deprecated/removal alerts in the documentation, yet I've heard all sorts of
> conjecture about the availability of short_open_tag along with asp_tags in 6
> and would like
On 11.03.2010, at 18:22, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Ah, Jani went a little crazy today in his typical style to force a
> decision. The real decision is not whether to have a version 5.4 or
> not, it is all about solving the Unicode problem. The current effort
> has obviously stalled. We need to f
Ah, Jani went a little crazy today in his typical style to force a
decision. The real decision is not whether to have a version 5.4 or
not, it is all about solving the Unicode problem. The current effort
has obviously stalled. We need to figure out how to get development
back on track in a way t
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 04:41 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
>> @jani: committing to a stable branch because you are getting a new laptop
>> is not really a convincing argument. :)
>>
>
> Losing the one with the changes in it is. Doing patches will on
On 11.03.2010, at 17:26, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 06:21 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/11/2010 04:41 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
@jani: committing to a stable branch because you are getting a new laptop
is
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
>> On 03/11/2010 04:41 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>>> @jani: committing to a stable branch because you are getting a new laptop
>>> is not really a convincing argument. :)
>>
>> Losin
On 03/11/2010 06:21 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On 03/11/2010 04:41 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
@jani: committing to a stable branch because you are getting a new laptop is
not really a convincing argument. :)
Losing the one with the change
On Mar 11, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 04:41 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>> @jani: committing to a stable branch because you are getting a new laptop is
>> not really a convincing argument. :)
>
> Losing the one with the changes in it is. Doing patches will only cau
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 13:45, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>
>> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>> > php6 not moving forward is the root cause there
>>
>> So lets just close the PHP 5.2 branch and open the PHP 5.4 branch.
>> The focus of PHP 5.4 could be the n
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 16:22, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
> I'd like to have branch for PHP_5_4, I'll also volunteer for RM on it.
> Perhaps it makes people wanting to get movement in HEAD to actually do
> something about it.
+1
We have several features still in HEAD/trunk that should be merged to
a
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Pierre Joye wrote:
> 5.3/6.0/next is not the question here. This change has nothing to do
> in a stable branch and must be reverted as soon as possible (I will do
> it tonight if nothing happens until then).
Oh yeah, definitely not disagreeing with that point. I was just tryi
On 03/11/2010 04:41 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
@jani: committing to a stable branch because you are getting a new laptop is
not really a convincing argument. :)
Losing the one with the changes in it is. Doing patches will only cause
endless headaches. Please move on, nothing to see here, it
On 11.03.2010, at 15:21, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> 5.3/6.0/next is not the question here. This change has nothing to do
> in a stable branch and must be reverted as soon as possible (I will do
> it tonight if nothing happens until then).
>
> I also understand the need to valid this new API a
hi,
5.3/6.0/next is not the question here. This change has nothing to do
in a stable branch and must be reverted as soon as possible (I will do
it tonight if nothing happens until then).
I also understand the need to valid this new API and my suggestion
could be the best way to do it at this stag
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > php6 not moving forward is the root cause there
>
> So lets just close the PHP 5.2 branch and open the PHP 5.4 branch.
> The focus of PHP 5.4 could be the new output layer and traits (one can
> dream, right?).
No, p
On 03/11/2010 02:38 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
php6 not moving forward is the root cause there
So lets just close the PHP 5.2 branch and open the PHP 5.4 branch.
The focus of PHP 5.4 could be the new output layer and traits (one can
dream, right?).
I'm not f
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> php6 not moving forward is the root cause there
So lets just close the PHP 5.2 branch and open the PHP 5.4 branch.
The focus of PHP 5.4 could be the new output layer and traits (one can
dream, right?).
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principa
On 11.03.2010, at 13:27, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Johannes Schlüter wrote:
>> Merging such major changes in a released branch like 5.3 is no option.
>
> +1
+1 .. and not getting the agreement before committing it is also pretty low.
but i guess you knew that. at the same time i know that i
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> Merging such major changes in a released branch like 5.3 is no option.
+1
--
Sebastian BergmannCo-Founder and Principal Consultant
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://thePHP.cc/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Developme
2010/3/11 Jani Taskinen :
> Yadda yadda, it's a bug fix. Just call next one 5.4 like it should be.
Let me translate what both reply said: Please revert, thanks.
The key number is this branche name is 3 and it is a stable branch.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http:/
On 03/11/2010 12:50 PM, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:24 +, Jani Taskinen wrote:
jani Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:24:29
+
Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=296062
Log:
MFH: Improved / fixed output buffering (Mich
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:24 +, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>
> jani Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:24:29
> +
>
> Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=296062
>
> Log:
> MFH: Improved / fixed output buffering (Michael Wallner)
Yes the old code had
HI Jani,
I don't think it is a good think to merge this change at this stage in
5.3. 5.3 is now very stable and should have only bug fixes and minor
improvements. I would have like to have the new output API in 5.3, but
we failed to do it before 5.3.0 release began. But it is definitively
too late
46 matches
Mail list logo
