Results for project PHP master, build date 2017-08-27 19:23:36-07:00
commit: a06ba4b
previous commit:a02cbb9
revision date: 2017-08-27 14:13:55+02:00
environment:Haswell-EP
cpu:Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz 2x18 cores,
stepping 2, LLC 45 MB
Hi Sara, hi Frederik,
Thinking more about this I came to change my vote (and for that reason I’ll
take back the suggestion to include it into 7.2):
The array API is the better API and allows for healthier future growth so we
should pursue that option
There is a (very ugly) workaround to s
Hi Stanislav,
My reasoning for this is as follows.
1. The session_set_cookie_params function requires a lifetime parameter
at the moment.
2. To enforce that lifetime stays required I did not want to make it
required within the optional array. That would make that optional array
not optional
Hi!
> additional argument to these three functions. The second implementation
> suggestion is to allow an array of options in which all the cookie
> options will be moved into. More details are to be found in the RFC.
Something not clear to me on the second one - why lifetime/expiration is
a sepa
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Frederik Bosch | Genkgo wrote:
> Little misunderstanding then. I agree we can better have this PHP 7.3 and
> take some time for it. Current votes also suggest that we should go for the
> array argument implementation. Since there is only a PR for the extra
> argu
Hi Andrey,
Little misunderstanding then. I agree we can better have this PHP 7.3
and take some time for it. Current votes also suggest that we should go
for the array argument implementation. Since there is only a PR for the
extra argument implementation, it will also take time to have the PR
Hi Frederik,
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Frederik Bosch | Genkgo
wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> While I agree on your statement that back-porting is suboptimal, I do not
> agree on the fact that I said that there was no time to wait. I submitted
> the RFC, awaited the opinions, changed the document
Hi Andrey,
While I agree on your statement that back-porting is suboptimal, I do
not agree on the fact that I said that there was no time to wait. I
submitted the RFC, awaited the opinions, changed the document according
to the different viewpoints and I link to the other RFC from this RFC. I
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Lars Strojny wrote:
>> Sounds good! Let's vote in getting it in first and then we can have a 2nd
>> RFC (and vote) if it should land in 7.2
>>
> Mmmm, not quite. IF you want to aim for 7.2, do it now in
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Lars Strojny wrote:
> Sounds good! Let's vote in getting it in first and then we can have a 2nd RFC
> (and vote) if it should land in 7.2
>
Mmmm, not quite. IF you want to aim for 7.2, do it now in the same
vote. Back porting is sub-optimal and there's not a rus
On Monday, August 28, 2017 4:24 AM Andrea Faulds wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the RFC only put to internals a week
> ago? That's not a long enough discussion period before opening voting,
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto says it should be at least 2 weeks.
The current RFC was pu
Hi,
Frederik Bosch wrote:
LS,
Just now, I opened the RFC on implementing same site cookies in PHP,
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/same-site-cookie, for voting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the RFC only put to internals a week
ago? That's not a long enough discussion period before opening v
12 matches
Mail list logo
