Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Zitat von Pierre Joye : On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jan Schneider wrote: I'm going to check with our Jenkins guru, but I'm wondering how such a VM should look like. Should it contain a complete Jenkins instance, or just a checkout of the Horde packages that you would run from your own

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jan Schneider wrote: > I'm going to check with our Jenkins guru, but I'm wondering how such a VM > should look like. Should it contain a complete Jenkins instance, or just a > checkout of the Horde packages that you would run from your own Jenkins > server(s)? I

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Zitat von Pierre Joye : hi Jan! On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Jan Schneider wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: from a quick look on their setup, they only have one node, and they are using the global php binary, so no, they are only testing one php version,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

hi Jan! On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Jan Schneider wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: >> >>> from a quick look on their setup, they only have one node, and they are >>> using the global php binary, so no, they are only testing one php >>> version, >>> and I do

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Zitat von Pierre Joye : On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: from a quick look on their setup, they only have one node, and they are using the global php binary, so no, they are only testing one php version, and I don't think that it would be the snapshot. but that would be

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > from a quick look on their setup, they only have one node, and they are > using the global php binary, so no, they are only testing one php version, > and I don't think that it would be the snapshot. > but that would be cool. :) It is a m

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > hi Jan! > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jan Schneider wrote: > > > FWIW it seems to be more stable now since upgrading to a newer Jenkins > > version. > > Do you test it against php's snapshot too? > -- > Pierre > > from a quick look o

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

hi Jan! On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jan Schneider wrote: > FWIW it seems to be more stable now since upgrading to a newer Jenkins > version. Do you test it against php's snapshot too? -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jan Schneider wrote: > > Zitat von Ferenc Kovacs : > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jan Schneider wrote: >> >>> >>> Zitat von Pierre Joye : >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > On 09/23/2011 12:17 PM, Pier

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Zitat von Ferenc Kovacs : On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jan Schneider wrote: Zitat von Pierre Joye : On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: On 09/23/2011 12:17 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: We do 2) already (while we are working on increasing the amount of apps and framewo

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jan Schneider wrote: > > Zitat von Pierre Joye : > >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf >> wrote: >>> >>> On 09/23/2011 12:17 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: >>> We do 2) already (while we are working on increasing the amount of apps and frameworks

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Zitat von Pierre Joye : On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: On 09/23/2011 12:17 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: We do 2) already (while we are working on increasing the amount of apps and frameworks being tested), as I was asking to revert this patch between 5.3.7 and 5.3.8 back

Re: [PHP-DEV] Backward Compatibility RFC - was Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Sorry, never even noticed instanceof got fixed (in 5.1) with undefined classes. Since it did not work when introduced, i just assumed it would stay that way... Anyway, It's a pretty good justification for phased "Announced" long term depreciation plan in 5.4 is_a() usage called without

Re: [PHP-DEV] Backward Compatibility RFC - was Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Hi! On 9/24/11 7:00 PM, Alan Knowles wrote: Obviously I'd be keen to see this fix applied to 5.4 as the standard use case for is_a() is mixed return testing as '$x instanceof "somestring"' does not work. There is no reason to do $x instanceof "somestring" as you can do just $x instanceof Clas

[PHP-DEV] Backward Compatibility RFC - was Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Obviously I'd be keen to see this fix applied to 5.4 as the standard use case for is_a() is mixed return testing as '$x instanceof "somestring"' does not work. I've drafted up a BC RFC, if anyone want to contribute - feel free to edit.. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/backwards_compatibility? The "id

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 20:38, Christopher Jones wrote: > > > On 09/23/2011 11:33 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> >> On 09/23/2011 08:20 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 09/23/2011 11:17 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: On 09/23/2011 07:13 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: > > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 11:33 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: On 09/23/2011 08:20 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: On 09/23/2011 11:17 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: On 09/23/2011 07:13 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: I could also see this being an interestin

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 08:20 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: > > > On 09/23/2011 11:17 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> On 09/23/2011 07:13 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: >>> I could also see this being an interesting peer-pressure move -- "Fi

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 08:20 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: > > > On 09/23/2011 11:17 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> On 09/23/2011 07:13 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: >>> I could also see this being an interesting peer-pressure move -- "Fi

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 11:17 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: On 09/23/2011 07:13 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: I could also see this being an interesting peer-pressure move -- "First to test!", "We tested last week; how come _you_ haven't?", etc. Sp

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 07:13 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: > > > On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > >> I could also see this being an interesting peer-pressure move -- "First >> to test!", "We tested last week; how come _you_ haven't?", etc. > > Speaking of testing, the commit > htt

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 09:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: I could also see this being an interesting peer-pressure move -- "First to test!", "We tested last week; how come _you_ haven't?", etc. Speaking of testing, the commit http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=317183 doesn't have

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 12:15 -0400, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > On 2011-09-23, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > On 09/23/2011 12:13 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > > > 2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf > > > > 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP > > > > frameworks and apps t

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 23.09.11 18:15, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > That said, I think it would be good to have a notification system > whereby framework leads are all pinged on new betas and RCs, and a wiki Something could probably monitor http://svn.php.net/repository/php/php-src/tags/ for changes and alert peo

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 2011-09-23, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 09/23/2011 12:13 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > > 2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf > > > 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP > > > frameworks and apps test every RC. Currently we notify them of RCs > > > and just hope someone

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

> Funny you mention that.  I wrote an extensive email to the PEAR QA team > a month ago (http://news.php.net/php.pear.qa/5890) proposing I clean up > the PEAR CI code and that they contact PHP QA to get it running on > gcov.php.net.  Alas, the people on PEAR QA team seem preoccupied with > life, so

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Hi Rasmus: On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:06:28PM +0200, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > Ok, executive decision made. Patch committed. Thanks. > 1. Should we work up a basic PEAR test case that we can add to our >tests? Funny you mention that. I wrote an extensive email to the PEAR QA team a month

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf : > On 09/23/2011 12:13 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: >> 2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf >>> 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP >>>   frameworks and apps test every RC. Currently we notify them of RCs >>>   and just hope someone will test and repo

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 09/23/2011 12:17 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > >> We do 2) already (while we are working on increasing the amount of >> apps and frameworks being tested), as I was asking to revert this >> patch between 5.3.7 and 5.3.8 back then pointing to o

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 12:17 PM, Pierre Joye wrote: > We do 2) already (while we are working on increasing the amount of > apps and frameworks being tested), as I was asking to revert this > patch between 5.3.7 and 5.3.8 back then pointing to our tests results > and numerous reports. The problem was not in

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 12:13 PM, Patrick ALLAERT wrote: > 2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf >> 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP >> frameworks and apps test every RC. Currently we notify them of RCs >> and just hope someone will test and report back, but that obviously >>

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

hi Rasmus, On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > 1. Should we work up a basic PEAR test case that we can add to our >   tests? > > 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP >   frameworks and apps test every RC. Currently we notify them of RCs >  

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

2011/9/23 Rasmus Lerdorf : > On 09/23/2011 01:37 AM, Alan Knowles wrote: >> This patch adds an extra parameter 'allow_string' to is_a (default off) >> and is_subclass_of (default on) , >> >> https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=55475&patch=Is_a_with_allow_string_argument_v3&revision=latest

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 01:37 AM, Alan Knowles wrote: > This patch adds an extra parameter 'allow_string' to is_a (default off) > and is_subclass_of (default on) , > > https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=55475&patch=Is_a_with_allow_string_argument_v3&revision=latest >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

This patch adds an extra parameter 'allow_string' to is_a (default off) and is_subclass_of (default on) , https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=55475&patch=Is_a_with_allow_string_argument_v3&revision=latest

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

I don't see the harm in reverting back to the previous behaviour in the 5.3 tree. It's not like it will break code that has been fixed to work with the new behaviour. -Rasmus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

2011/9/22 Johannes Schlüter : > On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 10:27 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: >> So I'm not sure what you would expect from distros, but please share >> and we'll setup automated tests, call for our users to test, whatever >> it takes to avoid this type of situation. > > This issue is not a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 10:27 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: > So I'm not sure what you would expect from distros, but please share > and we'll setup automated tests, call for our users to test, whatever > it takes to avoid this type of situation. This issue is not about packagers specifically. What we

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Excerpts from Kalle Sommer Nielsen's message of Thu Sep 22 08:03:19 -0700 2011: > Hi > > 2011/9/22 Daniel Convissor : > > Breaking PHP for untold thousands upon thousands of applications created > > over the past nine years is a FAR bigger problem for our image. > > While don't like the change du

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Hi 2011/9/22 Daniel Convissor : > Breaking PHP for untold thousands upon thousands of applications created > over the past nine years is a FAR bigger problem for our image. While don't like the change due the break in a stable branch which I also wrote about in the bug report. Then I don't see wh

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Wed Sep 21 09:57 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > > It then reverts is_a() back to the previous behavior, and clarifies > > the documentation. > > > To respect the release RFC, we shouldn't introduce a new BC break > (breaking behavior with something already released). > That's just

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Hi Folks: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:41:14AM +0200, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote: > > While I respect from a package maintainer standpoint the thought of > reverting to the pre 5.3.8 behaviour would help the Ubuntu project, > however, in the whole image it does not help the PHP project Breaking PHP

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

> Wearing my package maintainer hat and given that Alan's points above are > true, I would very much like for is_a's behaviour to be reverted to > pre-5.3.8 state as well. I also believe that reverting would cause less > damage than keeping current behaviour. The hugest of +1's! -- PHP Internals

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 22/09/11 01:41, Alan Knowles wrote: To clarify * Code changed to work around this change will not break if it is reverted. Basically it is to add is_object() before any call to is_a() * If left as is, there is reasonable potential for remote exploits in many codebases. * This change is not

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Hi 2011/9/21 Clint Byrum : > Just to give some perspective on this, we specifically did not ship php > 5.3.8 in Ubuntu 11.10 (in beta right now) because of this confusion. > This is in spite of the fact that it would have closed many bugs, and > reduced some of the burden on our security team sinc

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

To clarify * Code changed to work around this change will not break if it is reverted. Basically it is to add is_object() before any call to is_a() * If left as is, there is reasonable potential for remote exploits in many codebases. * This change is not really in the wild yet, as pe

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

Excerpts from Pierre Joye's message of Wed Sep 21 08:01:48 -0700 2011: > 2011/9/21 Johannes Schlüter : > > > Exactly. (while I, at this time, won't argue which behavior is more > > "correct") changing this in the first place was wrong. Changing it back > > is wrong again. We have two versions out

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

2011/9/21 Johannes Schlüter : > Exactly. (while I, at this time, won't argue which behavior is more > "correct") changing this in the first place was wrong. Changing it back > is wrong again. We have two versions out with this change. These > releases reach distributions, reach hosting companies,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 09:57 -0400, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > Reverting at this point adds a BC break on top of a BC break. Yes, the > original perhaps should not have happened (and likely wouldn't have, if > people had actually been testing the RCs...), but I'll argue again: the > new behavi

[PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 2011-09-20, Alan Knowles wrote: > Let's try and close this one. > > https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55475 > > I've just added a patch that adds is_class_of(), which is identical to > is_subclass_of, and has the new feature of supporting strings and using > the autoloader. is_class_of() has a