On 30 September 2014 04:06, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a new RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/sync
>
> Thoughts appreciated.
>
What are the actual benefits of this being included in core? The RFC
doesn't really list any.
Also, there was a discussion in June (started by Julie
On 9/29/2014 8:06 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Here is a new RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/sync
Thoughts appreciated.
Cheers,
As the original author of this extension, I only have a few caveats to
point out:
1) It has a dependency on POSIX semaphores on non-Windows platforms.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 30/09/2014 05:06, guilhermebla...@gmail.com a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Here is a new RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/sync
Isn't this extension a bit "young" to join php core ?
Remi.
>
> Thoughts appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
The title is wrong.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06 AM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a new RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/sync
>
> Thoughts appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Guilherme Blanco
> MSN: guilhermebla...@hotmail.com
> GTalk: guilhermeblanco
> Toronto - ON/Canada
--
Hi,
Here is a new RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/sync
Thoughts appreciated.
Cheers,
--
Guilherme Blanco
MSN: guilhermebla...@hotmail.com
GTalk: guilhermeblanco
Toronto - ON/Canada
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Andrey Andreev wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Sharon Levy wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I think in all fairness, users should be required to learn C and pass a
> test
> > demonstrating basic knowledge of PHP's internals in order to acquire
> voting
> > p
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Sharon Levy wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I think in all fairness, users should be required to learn C and pass a test
> demonstrating basic knowledge of PHP's internals in order to acquire voting
> privileges.
So, in order to vote, users should become (capable of being) co
Last, the 2nd sub-bullet of the 2nd bullet ("regular participant of
internals discussions") is especially problematic - as it basically pulls
the barrier to entry to nothing, and is the opposite of well-defined.
When
we revise the Voting RFC, it should go IMHO. Talk is cheap - the way to
get
a
Hi!
> I wonder if one could replace that release server with a simple vagrant
> setup or similar so the RM can actually create release archives on his
> own.
I've always packaged 5.4 on my local machine, but it may have a downside
of using different bison/automake/etc. version and produce a rel
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 18:35 +0200, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Am 29.09.2014 17:04, schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
> > On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 06:35 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> >> >> Actually, some php.net machines have been compromised and prevent us
> >> >> from releasing 5.6.1.
> > [...]
> > Q: Is the
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Am 29.09.2014 17:04, schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
>>
>> On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 06:35 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Actually, some php.net machines have been compromised and prevent us
>>> >> from releasing 5.6.1.
>>
>> [...]
>> Q: Is
Am 29.09.2014 17:04, schrieb Johannes Schlüter:
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 06:35 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> Actually, some php.net machines have been compromised and prevent us
>> from releasing 5.6.1.
[...]
Q: Is the git repo affected?
A: No. The infected box is a different one. git's cryptogr
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Stephen Zarkos
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Johannes Schlüter [mailto:johan...@schlueters.de]
>>
>> On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 06:35 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> > >> Actually, some php.net machines have been compromised and prevent
>> > >>
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Johannes Schlüter [mailto:johan...@schlueters.de]
>
> On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 06:35 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > >> Actually, some php.net machines have been compromised and prevent
> > >> us from releasing 5.6.1.
> [...]
> > All the source and binary r
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 06:35 -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> >> Actually, some php.net machines have been compromised and prevent us
> >> from releasing 5.6.1.
[...]
> All the source and binary releases along with git is safe.
To be more precise: The machine used to package up the releases show
some
On Sep 29, 2014, at 04:05, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
>
> Julien Pauli in php.internals (Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:50:55 +0200):
>>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
>>>
>>> The sources are available at http://windows.php.net/download/
>>> Strange that they did not show up at the non WIN
On 29 September 2014 11:50, Julien Pauli wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Actually, some php.net machines have been compromised and prevent us
> from releasing 5.6.1.
>
> One should not use the tag and wait for the official announcements.
>
> Julien.P
This is pretty troubling news.
We still haven't had the
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> Julien Pauli in php.internals (Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:50:55 +0200):
>>On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
>>
>>> The sources are available at http://windows.php.net/download/
>>> Strange that they did not show up at the non WIN3
Julien Pauli in php.internals (Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:50:55 +0200):
>On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>> The sources are available at http://windows.php.net/download/
>> Strange that they did not show up at the non WIN32 download page.
>> Is there some security issue that we are
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> Pierre Schmitz in php.internals (Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:44:33 +0200):
>>I wonder what happened to the 5.6.1 release. A git tag was pushed 4 days
>>ago but since then no announcement was made nor any tar files of then
>>release were uploaded.
>
>
On 29 Sep 2014, at 02:10, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> May be this overflow checks should be optional?
>> In old ages compilers for Wirth family languages had option to enable or
>> disable overflow checks.
>> If option is enabled we may throw an exception, if no - work as today.
>> Any user
nothing was changed in RFC itself, just additional details were clarified
during discussion.
I didn't thought about ArrayAccess when found this inconsistency.
Anyway, I won't object if someone will add missing info about ArrayAccess
support inconsistency and restart the voting.
Thanks. Dmitry.
O
22 matches
Mail list logo
