Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello shire,
Thursday, February 12, 2009, 8:02:06 PM, you wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
The following remain open and it does not seem someone is actively
working in it:
- PHP_5_3 missed merge from PHP_5_2 for write_func callback
Seeing as I have an interest in thi
Hello shire,
Thursday, February 12, 2009, 8:02:06 PM, you wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>> The following remain open and it does not seem someone is actively
>> working in it:
>> - PHP_5_3 missed merge from PHP_5_2 for write_func callback
> Seeing as I have an interest in this getting in 5_
> -Original Message-
> From: Hannes Magnusson [mailto:hannes.magnus...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:04 PM
> To: Andi Gutmans
> Cc: shire; Lukas Kahwe Smith; PHP Internals List
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.3 todos
>
> And you are?
> CTO of some
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 00:08, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: shire [mailto:sh...@tekrat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:02 AM
>> To: Lukas Kahwe Smith
>> Cc: PHP Internals List
>> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.3 todos
>
> -Original Message-
> From: shire [mailto:sh...@tekrat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:02 AM
> To: Lukas Kahwe Smith
> Cc: PHP Internals List
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.3 todos
>
>
> Seeing as I have an interest in this getting in 5_3, I'll w
Hi Lukas!
Just wanted to send a quick message about some things I'll try to do. :-)
Guess I'm a little late to "return," heh -- and I'm finishing a new system
build now and have to migrate stuff over :-/, but I'll get to these PHP
things soon as I can, on whatever system...
- Original Messag
On 12.02.2009, at 18:17, Leon KUKOVEC wrote:
Hi all,
A while back I published a patch for PHP 5.2 and SNMP. Anyone had time
to review it
and if so, any comments? Could this patch be considered as a PHP 5.3
TODO item?
Anything I need to do to accept the patch?
Err did you open a bug tick
On 12.02.2009, at 21:59, Arnaud Le Blanc wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 18:07 +0100, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
- pcntl_signal needs declare(ticks) which is deprecated since 5.3
I marked this as a documentation issue. This has been discussed when
it
was decided to deprecate ticks. Although it
Hi,
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 18:07 +0100, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> - pcntl_signal needs declare(ticks) which is deprecated since 5.3
I marked this as a documentation issue. This has been discussed when it
was decided to deprecate ticks. Although it would be great to keep
ticks, at least for use wi
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
The following remain open and it does not seem someone is actively
working in it:
- PHP_5_3 missed merge from PHP_5_2 for write_func callback
Seeing as I have an interest in this getting in 5_3, I'll work up a patch for
this unless someone wants to speak up that they'
Hi Steph:
> I'm talking about the UPGRADE file in the source, which is plain text.
AH! Pardon the misunderstanding. Yeah, it seems that file should be
short and sweet then point folks to the manual.
Thanks,
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
Hi all,
A while back I published a patch for PHP 5.2 and SNMP. Anyone had time
to review it
and if so, any comments? Could this patch be considered as a PHP 5.3 TODO item?
Anything I need to do to accept the patch?
Thanks.
--
Best Regards,
Leon
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Developm
It doesn't matter that the XML file is long. Each section is broken up
into a separate page in the manual.
I'm talking about the UPGRADE file in the source, which is plain text.
Have you ever tried to read it?
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, vi
Hi Steph:
> It's nothing to do with structure. "Everything" makes for a very long
> file, full stop.
It doesn't matter that the XML file is long. Each section is broken up
into a separate page in the manual.
You want the upgrade guide to contain just the things that will cause
difficulties u
BUT perhaps some of the more complex explanations should have their own
document. If it 'requires more explanation than we want to provide in
the documentation' that does seem to suggest that a development perhaps
DOES need better doumentation?
In the manual, really. But - quite.
- Steph
--
Hi Dan,
Because the guide is in the manual. The manual is the difinitive source
on how to use PHP.
The guide was only added directly into the manual quite recently. This is
exactly what I'm trying to say; its purpose has shifted since it became part
of the manual and it's lost whatever usef
So in summary, I feel the key point for this document is:
- a single document that lists all changes
- contains pointers that enables someone to look up more details in the
documentation
- enables people who get new "strange" error messages to find pointers
towards the documentation
- some leng
Then I guess I need to read the archives.
I can't imagine why a system admin would give a damn about new
language features, object model, reference changes, pdo, new error
levels or how to check if a class inherits another class.
They'd need to know that there had been major changes in the langu
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Hey Steph,
Personally I think we should list all changes. For certain changes we
should devote some explanations (like E_DEPRECATED). For the most part I
see this document as a place where we provide an overview of things
which then gives them the right key word to lo
Hi Steph:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 07:02:35PM -, Steph Fox wrote:
>
> In the last two upgrading guides, we've repeated much of what is already
> in the NEWS file or in the release notes. This makes me wonder what the
> point is of having an upgrading guide...?
Because the guide is in the man
Hey Steph,
Personally I think we should list all changes. For certain changes we
should devote some explanations (like E_DEPRECATED). For the most part
I see this document as a place where we provide an overview of things
which then gives them the right key word to look in the documentation
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 20:55, Steph Fox wrote:
> Please go back to the original discussion about the purpose of this guide.
> It was aimed primarily at sysadmins. If we turn it into a prettier version
Then I guess I need to read the archives.
I can't imagine why a system admin would give a damn
An upgrade is not only about problems, it is also about solutions.
You need a problem before providing a solution. Really.
A
kind of tutorial on how to use all the changes in a given release in
your applications. It often helps to clean codes, remove work 'round,
etc. An upgrade guide is often
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Steph Fox wrote:
>> IMHO listing new functions is useful - there could be a name collision
>> with
>> a function in users code (I know it is improbable, because the functions
>> are
>> named extname_funcname, but still possible)
>
> Improbable indeed. The nearest w
IMHO listing new functions is useful - there could be a name collision
with
a function in users code (I know it is improbable, because the functions
are
named extname_funcname, but still possible)
Improbable indeed. The nearest we ever came to that was with the Date class
(because PEAR alread
IMHO listing new functions is useful - there could be a name collision with
a function in users code (I know it is improbable, because the functions are
named extname_funcname, but still possible)
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Steph Fox wrote:
>
> But this was actually an add-on after I put
But this was actually an add-on after I put the initial 5.1 upgrading
guide
together. A 200-line document became a 500-line document overnight, and
voila - nobody reads the thing.
Actually I'm wrong - that was 5.2. The 5.1 upgrade guide appears to be
as-was.
So again, why are we listing ne
Hi Hannes,
Think about the online manual. In 2 years from now people should still
be able to read the upgrading guide and it should still make sense
without needing to hunt down random release announcements or outdated
NEWS files.
The upgrade which gets committed to php-src will be taken, word
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 20:02, Steph Fox wrote:
> In the last two upgrading guides, we've repeated much of what is already in
> the NEWS file or in the release notes. This makes me wonder what the point
> is of having an upgrading guide...?
Think about the online manual. In 2 years from now peopl
features in PHP syntax (exception: reserved keywords). We should focus on
things that are deprecating, missing or else behave differently in some way
IMHO.
Comments welcome,
- Steph
- Original Message -
From: "Lukas Kahwe Smith"
To: "PHP Internals List"
Sent: We
Hi,
It seems aside from some smaller commits, the last minute closure
change has gone through without issues.
Our todo list however doesnt have that many checked off items:
http://wiki.php.net/todo/php53#next_release_beta2rc1
To me the biggest issue is the UPGRADING README. So please approach
31 matches
Mail list logo
