On 21/05/15 09:49, Peter Petermann wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> I personally think the RFC is a bit short,
> also I just had a very brief look at the documentation of the
extension in
> question, and find its API a bit strange,
> whats up with having everything in static method calls?
>
> regards,
> PP
>
On May 22, 2015 7:20 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > I'd like to add "void" to this list, so we have the option to introduce
a
> > void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether
this
>
> I think this type makes no sense in PHP, but I don't object to having
> n
Hi!
> I'd like to add "void" to this list, so we have the option to introduce a
> void return type in PHP 7.x. I've seen some disagreement as to whether this
I think this type makes no sense in PHP, but I don't object to having
note in the docs for people not to name their classes "void" (not tha
Hi,
I think that not reserving "void" by spec now is actually going against the
"Request For Comments" process. If we don't soft reserve now we won't even
have the possibility to discuss it later, this kills the discussion before
it starts.
The soft reservation has zero impact over PHP7.0, no one
On May 20, 2015 7:05 PM, "Ferenc Kovacs" wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Julien Pauli wrote:
> >
> >> Hello people.
> >>
> >> Time is going, and summer is coming.
> >>
> >> I think we must have branched 7.0 until end
On May 21, 2015 6:45 PM, wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > De: "Nikita Popov"
> >
> > For PHP 7 we soft-reserved a number of class names [1] like "numeric",
so
> > that we have the ability to introduce them as typehints in a 7.x
release.
> > "Soft" here means that we only document these names as being reserve
Hi,
> De: "Nikita Popov"
>
> For PHP 7 we soft-reserved a number of class names [1] like "numeric", so
> that we have the ability to introduce them as typehints in a 7.x release.
> "Soft" here means that we only document these names as being reserved and
> don't throw an error when they're used.
Hi Eric,
> -Original Message-
> From: Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:29 AM
> To: Eric Stenson; internals-...@lists.php.net
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: [INTERNALS-WIN] Re: [PHP-DEV] Q: What is the Config.w32 equivalent
> of PHP_ADD_MAK
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Ferenc Kovacs [mailto:tyr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:04 AM
> To: Julien Pauli
> Cc: PHP Internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Branching off PHP7 and electing RMs
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Eric Stenson
wrote:
> Internals folks--
>
> I'm trying to add something...complicated to a PECL extension, and I need
> to add some custom dependency rules to the Makefile.
>
> Specifically, I'm compiling a manifest file using 'mc', which produces
> both a .h file
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Julien Pauli wrote:
>>
>>> Hello people.
>>>
>>> Time is going, and summer is coming.
>>>
>>> I think we must have branched 7.0 until end
> -Original Message-
> From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:28 AM
> To: Remi Collet; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About merging Pull Request workflow
>
> Hi!
>
> > Current workflow described in
> > https://wiki.php.ne
Hi Scott,
I personally think the RFC is a bit short,
also I just had a very brief look at the documentation of the extension in
question, and find its API a bit strange,
whats up with having everything in static method calls?
regards,
PP
2015-05-21 3:15 GMT+02:00 Scott Arciszewski :
> Hi Inter
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Remi Collet [mailto:r...@fedoraproject.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:17 AM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] About merging Pull Request workflow
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Current workflow
Hi!
> Current workflow described in
> https://wiki.php.net/vcs/gitworkflow#merge_a_pull_request
>
> Problem, git history only give info about a "merge"
If you merge from a pull, the history should contain both original
commit and the merge commit. So you know both who created the patch and
who m
Yep, is a real problem. We should keep the credit / commit info.
I think we should remove "--no-ff" so it would just add the relevant
commits instead of actually merging them
without history (or even rebase the pull request to recent branch before
merging).
Kaplan
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:16
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Current workflow described in
https://wiki.php.net/vcs/gitworkflow#merge_a_pull_request
Problem, git history only give info about a "merge"
Ex, after merging 1278:
http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=commit;h=eef762d576e7744d6e0c8d6a3f997fe911
17 matches
Mail list logo
