Current situation from the manual:
- Interface method Throwable::getCode() promises to return int.
- The Error class and the Exception class both implement Throwable,
but their constructor accepts $code as int while their getCode() method
returns mixed.
The reason, reveals the Exception::get
Hi Adam,
Adam Harvey wrote:
On 11 January 2016 at 06:05, Rowan Collins wrote:
Since set_exception_handler() is intended as a last-ditch "something's gone
very wrong" function anyway, I think it receiving all Throwables makes
sense, even if the BC break in your scenario is unfortunate.
Agreed
Hi!
> This is yet another example of the toxic internals problem.
> Regardless of one's views on the CoC proposal, the conduct of
> php-internals as a whole has been reprehensible.
What in your opinion was reprehensive, could you explain?
> And *every* time I start to think, "ok, I'm finally goi
[Apologies for the re-post; I’m re-sending this with a new subject because it’s
really not about the CoC RFC.]
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 19:40, François Laupretre wrote:
>
> If we want to deal with the reasons why people avoid internals, the let's go
> and analyze the problem first ? I will start
First and foremost, as PHP is an open source project and the lifeblood of
any open source project is accepting that people do come (and go). I've
been watching internals for a few years and that is clearly obvious. So it
seems silly for any open source project to argue against newcomers.
On Mon,
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 19:40, François Laupretre wrote:
>
> If we want to deal with the reasons why people avoid internals, the let's go
> and analyze the problem first ? I will start asking whether we really want to
> attract newcomers. The question may sound ridiculous but I think we don't,
On Jan 12, 2016 6:28 AM, "Scott Arciszewski" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Solar Designer
wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:04:36AM -0500, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> > > To my understanding, the crypt scheme hasn't been formalized. Solar
> > > Designer, can you confirm?
> >
>
All,
> If we want to deal with the reasons why people avoid internals, the let's go
> and analyze the problem first ? I will start asking whether we really want
> to attract newcomers. The question may sound ridiculous but I think we
> don't, mostly because most people here see newcomers as just a
Hi all,
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Andreas Heigl wrote:
>> From my own point of view, I like to know who supports and who opposes a
>> particular RFC simply because I can't vote myself. It helps me to decide
>> if I need to look deeper into the RFC or if I can rely on those with
>> voting r
Le 11/01/2016 23:55, Anthony Ferrara a écrit :
There are two prime reasons people may avoid internals (at least
related to this discussion).
1. Don't want to deal with the aggressive tone of the list
2. Don't want to expose themselves to targeted aggression/negativity
If we want to deal with
Hi!
> I don't think that's a fair characterization of this discussion. Some
> people have questioned what this is a solution to, but most haven't.
> Some have questioned if we have a problem, but most haven't.
Again, "a problem". You and Pierre are talking as if there's specific
problem you have
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Solar Designer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:04:36AM -0500, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> > To my understanding, the crypt scheme hasn't been formalized. Solar
> > Designer, can you confirm?
>
> I think it has been, in the way defined by encoding.c in:
>
> http
Hi Eli,
Le 11/01/2016 15:45, Eli a écrit :
On 1/10/16 8:15 AM, Dennis Birkholz wrote:
I would really like to understand the rational behind anonymous voting
in the PHP internals context. Votes for RFCs should be purely based on
technical reasons and whether the language change would benefit the
On 11/01/16 22:55, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> There are two prime reasons people may avoid internals (at least
> related to this discussion).
>
> 1. Don't want to deal with the aggressive tone of the list
> 2. Don't want to expose themselves to targeted aggression/negativity
Sorry, but this is bull
David,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:05 PM, David Zuelke wrote:
> On 11.01.2016, at 12:31, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
>> Actually, asking for proof and denying are the same thing. If they
>> weren't, then why would you be asking for proof unless you believed it
>> didn't happen?
>
> They are not the s
> > That's because nobody does that. Instead, the question is whether the
> > specific proposal is helpful to fix specific issues. The conversation
> > goes like this:
> >
> > A: here's solution X!
> > B: for what?
> > A: for problem Y
> > B: but do we have problem Y? Also, X does not seem to solv
On 11.01.2016, at 12:31, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Actually, asking for proof and denying are the same thing. If they
> weren't, then why would you be asking for proof unless you believed it
> didn't happen?
They are not the same thing. If you make a claim, then the onus of proof is on
you, and
Stas,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> I fail to understand how one can think that the CoC could be about
>> censorship (which is basically what this comment says).
>
> I can explain you that very easily: there are known instances where CoCs
> were used and e
On 11 January 2016 at 06:05, Rowan Collins wrote:
> Since set_exception_handler() is intended as a last-ditch "something's gone
> very wrong" function anyway, I think it receiving all Throwables makes
> sense, even if the BC break in your scenario is unfortunate.
Agreed entirely (as I also said l
Hi!
> I fail to understand how one can think that the CoC could be about
> censorship (which is basically what this comment says).
I can explain you that very easily: there are known instances where CoCs
were used and even more instances where there were attempts to use CoCs
and CoC-like structu
Den 2016-01-11 kl. 14:31, skrev Giovanni Giacobbi:
Greetings,
Short premise before I get flamed: I know PHP 7 is rolling and it is way
too late for this, that I should've tested the RCs, follow the mailing list
and so on, but I'm a dev like you guys and struggle with the time to do
everything by
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:52 PM Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2016 8:47 PM, "Brandon Savage"
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what
> > > great cover! A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so
> no
> > > rules! Twitter,
On Jan 11, 2016 8:47 PM, "Brandon Savage" wrote:
>
> >
> > At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what
> > great cover! A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no
> > rules! Twitter, ha, no rules! Reddit? LOL like they enforce anything.
> > If someone
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Paul M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:00, Brandon Savage
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Anthony Ferrara
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The CoC doesn't try to enforce itself outside
> >> of the scope of project members. Instead, it applies to
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:00, Brandon Savage wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Anthony Ferrara
> wrote:
>
>> The CoC doesn't try to enforce itself outside
>> of the scope of project members. Instead, it applies to project
>> members wherever they represent the project.
>>
>
> So ju
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Anthony Ferrara
wrote:
> The CoC doesn't try to enforce itself outside
> of the scope of project members. Instead, it applies to project
> members wherever they represent the project.
>
So just to be clear, your intent is for the CoC to apply *only* to those
who
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > This particular case isn't what a CoC would protect. So I think that's
> > a bit of a red herring. The CoC doesn't try to enforce itself outside
> > of the scope of project members. Instead, it applies to project
>
> OK, that
Hi!
> This particular case isn't what a CoC would protect. So I think that's
> a bit of a red herring. The CoC doesn't try to enforce itself outside
> of the scope of project members. Instead, it applies to project
OK, that is clear enough, but I see an issue here - we'd be applying an
pressure t
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:04:36AM -0500, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> To my understanding, the crypt scheme hasn't been formalized. Solar
> Designer, can you confirm?
I think it has been, in the way defined by encoding.c in:
https://github.com/P-H-C/phc-winner-argon2
$ echo password | ./argon2 salt
Stas,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> least hold ourselves to a level of mutual respect. Going out and
>> calling someone a moron in public is not constructive nor respectful,
>> and IMHO we as a project shouldn't sit back and blindly say "whatever"
>> if it
Hi!
> the anonymous voting was reverted almost instantly, or about the recent CoC
> discussion which was back and forth between having the voters/reporters
> privacy, shielding them from potential backlash or having more transparency
> for the voting results, so I'm curious about what Stas meant a
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > least hold ourselves to a level of mutual respect. Going out and
> > calling someone a moron in public is not constructive nor respectful,
> > and IMHO we as a project shouldn't sit back and blindly say "whatever"
> > if it ha
Hi!
> least hold ourselves to a level of mutual respect. Going out and
> calling someone a moron in public is not constructive nor respectful,
> and IMHO we as a project shouldn't sit back and blindly say "whatever"
> if it happens.
OK, so what should we do instead? So far my calls to apply some
Results for project PHP master, build date 2016-01-11 06:30:31+02:00
commit: e6ed53e
previous commit:bb357e0
revision date: 2016-01-08 17:21:59+00:00
environment:Haswell-EP
cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores,
stepping 2, LLC 45 MB
Ferenc,
Thank you for the breakdown, I appreciate the explanation of the process!
I'll get to work :)
Sincerely,
Bryan "BJ" Hoffpauir, Jr.
beejh...@gmail.com
Blog: http://innovez.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/bjhofpauir
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Eli wrote:
> Thanks for all the backstory Ferenc, but I knew about the reasons for this
> pull request. It's relation to the current CoC discussion, as well as the
> past cases of having anonymous votes and it's rollback.
>
> But my statement was in the context
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> Brandon,
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Brandon Savage
> mailto:bran...@brandonsavage.net>> wrote:
>
>> And that to me is the crux of the issue. When it comes to making
>> discussions on internals more civilized, governing a perso
Thanks for all the backstory Ferenc, but I knew about the reasons for
this pull request. It's relation to the current CoC discussion, as
well as the past cases of having anonymous votes and it's rollback.
But my statement was in the context of the thread between Stas &
Andrea. Wherein Stas sta
Brandon,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Brandon Savage
wrote:
>>
>> At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what
>> great cover! A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no
>> rules! Twitter, ha, no rules! Reddit? LOL like they enforce anything.
>> I
+ Solar Designer
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Rouven Weßling wrote:
>
>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 13:27, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> On Jan 11, 2016 4:12 PM, "Rouven Weßling" wrote:
>> >
>> > * Is there already a crypt scheme for Argon2? Or are there any efforts to
>> > define one? It would
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Eli wrote:
> On 1/9/16 5:03 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> > Hi Stas,
> >
> > Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >>> This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for
> >>> RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing
>
On 1/10/16 8:15 AM, Dennis Birkholz wrote:
> I would really like to understand the rational behind anonymous voting
> in the PHP internals context. Votes for RFCs should be purely based on
> technical reasons and whether the language change would benefit the
> language in the long run or not. I see
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Bryan Hoffpauir wrote:
> Good Day! I'm a new member of the PHP Community Wiki and I'd like to have
> my account updated so that I might edit my profile and update my password.
>
> My username is specified below (and my sig has links to my blog and
> LinkedIn profi
On 1/9/16 5:03 PM, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Stas,
>
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use by default for
>>> RFCs. It's interesting to see how different people vote, and knowing
>>> who
>>
>> I think we talked about it, and decided not to do
Giovanni Giacobbi wrote on 11/01/2016 13:31:
set_exception_handler(callback function, bool also_throwables = false);
The new parameter "also_throwables" defaults to false, so the same
behaviour as before is preserved. If you want it to catch also the new PHP7
Error exceptions, you can just set i
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>
> > Hi Stas,
> >
> > Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >
> > > Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous
> > > voting, I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be
> > > cr
Dear Giovanni,
I brought this up last July, see https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=70050 ;
because in a few code bases I tested back then, this was the first issue
I hit.
Unfortunately, it was only deemed a "Documentation Problem" back then.
AFAIK this is the most up to date information. Sorry I don
I question if there is a way to keep all communication in PHP Internals on
PHP Internals, which would minimize the risk of someone reaching someone
outside of PHP Internals. By that I mean, as it stands now, everyone's
email is public and someone meaning to cause or threaten harm could
personally
>
> At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what
> great cover! A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no
> rules! Twitter, ha, no rules! Reddit? LOL like they enforce anything.
> If someone wanted to send a death threat to another developer about PHP
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 2:48 AM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
> So, we have a situation where we have a mismatch between a problem and a
> solution, and that is what the misunderstanding is based on. You and
> several other people try to prove something we already agree about -
> that certain prob
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Hi Stas,
>
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
>
> > Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous
> > voting, I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be
> > created:
> >
> > https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7
> >
> > The res
Greetings,
Short premise before I get flamed: I know PHP 7 is rolling and it is way
too late for this, that I should've tested the RCs, follow the mailing list
and so on, but I'm a dev like you guys and struggle with the time to do
everything by the book, including reading the previous threads bec
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 13:27, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> Hi,
> On Jan 11, 2016 4:12 PM, "Rouven Weßling" wrote:
> >
> > * Is there already a crypt scheme for Argon2? Or are there any efforts to
> > define one? It would good if PHP wouldn’t be an island.
>
> https://github.com/P-H-C/phc-winner-argon
Hi,
On Jan 11, 2016 4:12 PM, "Rouven Weßling" wrote:
>
>
> > On 11 Jan 2016, at 07:57, Scott Arciszewski wrote:
> >
> > Does adding Argon2 as a possible choice for password_hash() +
> > password_verify() need an RFC? Or can I just submit a pull request?
>
> The original RFC (https://wiki.php.net/
On 11 January 2016 at 12:14, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 12:00 AM
> > To: Andrea Faulds ; internals@lists.php.net
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
> >
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 12:00 AM
> To: Andrea Faulds ; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki
>
> Hi!
>
> > This seems useful. I do wonder whether we should use b
Larry,
Thanks for your detailed letter. I think that I'm not that far off from your
position, but clearly, there are some differences of opinion that lead us to
different conclusions.
Given the length of your email, I'm going to be very^H^H^H^H selective in what
I respond to.
> I'm inclined t
On 11 January 2016 at 09:12, Rouven Weßling wrote:
>
> > On 11 Jan 2016, at 07:57, Scott Arciszewski wrote:
> >
> > Does adding Argon2 as a possible choice for password_hash() +
> > password_verify() need an RFC? Or can I just submit a pull request?
>
> The original RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Stanislav Malyshev
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Even without that, though, it's clear we *do* have more serious issues
> > than just "rudeness". When a major contributor is getting death-threats
> > over an RFC, *there is a problem*. That they're happening off-list
> > do
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 07:57, Scott Arciszewski wrote:
>
> Does adding Argon2 as a possible choice for password_hash() +
> password_verify() need an RFC? Or can I just submit a pull request?
The original RFC (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/password_hash) contained the
following text:
> I'd propose th
Hi!
> Even without that, though, it's clear we *do* have more serious issues
> than just "rudeness". When a major contributor is getting death-threats
> over an RFC, *there is a problem*. That they're happening off-list
> doesn't change the fact that *that is a problem*.
OK, so to evaluate solu
2016. jan. 10. 12:57 ezt írta ("Marco Pivetta" ):
>
> While I'd love to see mcrypt die, unless we all forgot how semver works,
> this isn't how it can be done :-\
> If you want to actually drop something, regardless of how bad it is (and I
> know mcrypt is bad), then the next major version is where
62 matches
Mail list logo
