and? I'm not sure the reason why you insist on getting his voice. This
topic has been discussed over and over and if, and I really mean if,
there are objections about the warning level, we can always change it
later.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Pierre:
>
>> if th
Hi Pierre:
> if there are no objection until then, I will commit this patch as it
> is tomorrow.
Derick is out of town until Monday.
Thanks,
--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
h
hi,
if there are no objection until then, I will commit this patch as it
is tomorrow.
Thanks for your feedback!
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
> Hi Pierre:
>
>> I do not want to sound harsh but could you please read my reply?
>
> I had read your reply. I value your o
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:21:16PM -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> On 7/19/11 4:44 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> >Expected:<$5$saltstring$5B8vYYiY.CVt1RlTTf8KbXBH3hsxY/GNooZaBBGWEc5>
> >Got<$5$saltst$JTS/fkywz8NvjeCGmWDndJPi7ZrRFhQKBLNtQZWE2C3>
[...]
> Yes, we had buffer overflow error there since the
On 21 July 2011 02:19, Pierre Joye wrote:
> Now the only question remaining is which level warning we should use
> for the setter. I'm happy with E_CORE. Objections?
None here. +1 for E_CORE_ERROR — it's exactly what it's for.
Adam
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsu
+1 E_CORE
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Paul Dragoonis wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Gwynne Raskind
> wrote:
> > +1 to E_CORE.
>
> No objections against it, so +1 E_CORE
>
> >
> > -- Gwynne
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 06:28, Pierrick Charron
> wrote:
> >> I'm also o
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Gwynne Raskind
wrote:
> +1 to E_CORE.
No objections against it, so +1 E_CORE
>
> -- Gwynne
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 06:28, Pierrick Charron wrote:
>> I'm also ok with E_CORE.
>>
>> Pierrick
>>
>> On 21 July 2011 05:19, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>> hi Pierrick
+1 to E_CORE.
-- Gwynne
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 06:28, Pierrick Charron wrote:
> I'm also ok with E_CORE.
>
> Pierrick
>
> On 21 July 2011 05:19, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> hi Pierrick!
>>
>> Thanks for the updated patch :)
>>
>> Now the only question remaining is which level warning we should use
I'm also ok with E_CORE.
Pierrick
On 21 July 2011 05:19, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi Pierrick!
>
> Thanks for the updated patch :)
>
> Now the only question remaining is which level warning we should use
> for the setter. I'm happy with E_CORE. Objections?
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Pierri
On 21 July 2011 10:19, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi Pierrick!
>
> Thanks for the updated patch :)
>
> Now the only question remaining is which level warning we should use
> for the setter. I'm happy with E_CORE. Objections?
>
Baited breath I've got the champagne on ice ... so long mq!
--
Richa
hi Pierrick!
Thanks for the updated patch :)
Now the only question remaining is which level warning we should use
for the setter. I'm happy with E_CORE. Objections?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Pierrick Charron wrote:
> I tried to send the patch as a .txt file but it seems my mail was not
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
