Hi!
> I'd to disagree. Besides the lack of testing (openssl is stable, or do
> we begin to say feature a is not and feature b is beta but everything
> else is stable?), the nightmare about what is available in which
> version is really not what we should do.
Where's the "nightmare"? Each function
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
> On 05/11/2013 11:10 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>
>> On 05/10/2013 08:54 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2013 05:02 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>>>
Hi,
I am testing PHP 5.5 atm and how we can package it for Arch Li
On 05/11/2013 11:10 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
On 05/10/2013 08:54 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
On 05/09/2013 05:02 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
I am testing PHP 5.5 atm and how we can package it for Arch Linux and
provide an upgrade path for users. The RC1 looks pretty solid so far.
As the ne
On 05/10/2013 08:54 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
On 05/09/2013 05:02 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
I am testing PHP 5.5 atm and how we can package it for Arch Linux and
provide an upgrade path for users. The RC1 looks pretty solid so far.
As the new opcache does not provide a user cache to s
xinglp wrote:
>This is my ugly patch for this.
The patch didn't come through. Please send it as text/plain. Or send it as pull
request or attach it to a fature request in the bug tracker.
But: Why do you need/want this feature? Except for creating a dependency mess.
johannes
--
PHP Intern
