On Friday 18 June 2004 02:04 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> That said, I think it'd be great if there'd be people willing to pitch in
> and work on trying to get it to work.
Well if it's help which is needed, then I volunteer myself for anything that
needs to be done to make it happen.
--
Jeremy Joh
I run the il.php.net mirror on php5 from the beta era... It looks to be
working fine...
On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 17:49, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> At 10:28 20/06/2004, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >SH>>Perhaps we should try running php.net and zend.com on php5 before we
> >SH>>release? if we're not even
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> I don't think it reflects on the quality of PHP 5. It does reflect on the
> fact that migrating is a bit scary.
Agreed, but I think that anything we can do to help mitigate these
fears will help spur PHP 5 adoption.
Deciding to migrate is about reward
Zeev Suraski wrote:
We'll actually try to move something on www.zend.com to PHP 5 before the
release, but definitely not the whole of it. It's a much more
complicated site than www.php.net is, though, so it will take longer to
actually migrate the whole of it.
I don't think it reflects on the
At 10:28 20/06/2004, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
SH>>Perhaps we should try running php.net and zend.com on php5 before we
SH>>release? if we're not even eating our own dogfood yet, it seems
SH>>premature to release.
As for zend.com, I don't think this is going to happen before the release,
if the re
SH>>Perhaps we should try running php.net and zend.com on php5 before we
SH>>release? if we're not even eating our own dogfood yet, it seems
SH>>premature to release.
As for zend.com, I don't think this is going to happen before the release,
if the release dates are what they are announced.
Als
At 12:43 PM 6/18/2004 -0700, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Don't think that's a good idea. I suggest to wait for another 2 weeks or
> so, then release 5.0.0 and create a 5_0 branch for bug fix releases and
5_1
> for bigger changes.
> BTW, Zeev suggested 4th of J
At 11:37 PM 6/18/2004 +0200, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Don't think that's a good idea. I suggest to wait for another 2 weeks or
> so, then release 5.0.0 and create a 5_0 branch for bug fix releases and 5_1
> for bigger changes.
erm, not again. HEAD is main dev
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Don't think that's a good idea. I suggest to wait for another 2 weeks or
> so, then release 5.0.0 and create a 5_0 branch for bug fix releases and 5_1
> for bigger changes.
erm, not again. HEAD is main development for 5.1 (read the archives :)
> BTW, Ze
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:27:05PM -0700, Sterling Hughes wrote:
>
> should take every opportunity we have to test it in a real world
> circumstance before releasing it onto the public.
Hear, hear!
--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
data i
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Don't think that's a good idea. I suggest to wait for another 2 weeks or
> so, then release 5.0.0 and create a 5_0 branch for bug fix releases and 5_1
> for bigger changes.
> BTW, Zeev suggested 4th of July for a release date. I think that's nice
> timi
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:04:36 +0200, Andi Gutmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think having php.net run PHP 5 is a pre-requisite for a release.
What high traffic site is PHP5 RCx powering at the moment?
Where is PHP5 being stress tested?
How many people have deployed it for non-academic
I don't think having php.net run PHP 5 is a pre-requisite for a release.
That said, I think it'd be great if there'd be people willing to pitch in
and work on trying to get it to work.
And I don't see any problem with php.net not running the latest 4.x version
either. Most high-traffic websites d
On Jun 18, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Sterling Hughes wrote:
% telnet www.php.net 80
Trying 64.246.30.37...
Connected to php.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:13:45 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) mod_gzip/1.3.26.1a PHP/4.3.3-dev
% telnet www.php.net 80
Trying 64.246.30.37...
Connected to php.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:13:45 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) mod_gzip/1.3.26.1a PHP/4.3.3-dev
Location: http://www.php.net/
Connection: close
Content-Ty
Don't think that's a good idea. I suggest to wait for another 2 weeks or
so, then release 5.0.0 and create a 5_0 branch for bug fix releases and 5_1
for bigger changes.
BTW, Zeev suggested 4th of July for a release date. I think that's nice
timing. Anyone object? (maybe the French? :)
Andi
At 0
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Even i am holding back tons of patches right now to not disturb release
process further :-)
Why not branch PHP 5.0 now and continue development in HEAD as PHP 5.1?
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Das Buch zu PHP
Hello Stanislav,
Wednesday, June 16, 2004, 10:16:17 AM, you wrote:
AV>>>I can't find any serious reason to apply the pathes into the current
AV>>>PHP4 and PHP5 versions.
> PHP5 is in freeze now. Meaning, no changes are done unless they are
> absolutely critical. The reason is that we want PHP5
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Alexander Valyalkin wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:05:32 -0700 (Pacific Standard Time), Rasmus Lerdorf
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> As Alexander's initial re-implementation of crc32() was broken on 64-bit
> >> architectures, I think this is a very good point.
> >
>
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:05:32 -0700 (Pacific Standard Time), Rasmus Lerdorf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As Alexander's initial re-implementation of crc32() was broken on 64-bit
architectures, I think this is a very good point.
And his stripslashes() "improvement" actually broke backward
compatib
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:35:04 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexander Valyalkin wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:03:36 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Have you tested my initial re-implementation of crc32() on 64-bit
architectures?
No, but I don't have to:
re
Alexander Valyalkin wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:03:36 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Have you tested my initial re-implementation of crc32() on 64-bit
architectures?
No, but I don't have to:
register unsigned long int crc = ~0ul;
... so crc = 0x
do {
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote:
> > On the other hand, if code IS working stably then it may be better to
> > leave it alone. I'm not saying don't tidy up code, but ALL the tests
> > against a change need to be in place before a change is applied to the
> > live co
On Jun 16, 2004, at 4:06 AM, Alexander Valyalkin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:56:37 +0100, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Once PHP5 is out - THEN the sorts of fixes Alexander is suggesting
could be looked at - but not until then.
Once PHP5 is out - THEN all of my fixes will safely forg
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:03:36 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As Alexander's initial re-implementation of crc32() was broken on 64-bit
architectures, I think this is a very good point.
Have you tested my initial re-implementation of crc32() on 64-bit
architectures?
--
Using Opera
Lester Caine wrote:
On the other hand, if code IS working stably then it may be better to
leave it alone. I'm not saying don't tidy up code, but ALL the tests
against a change need to be in place before a change is applied to the
live code, and in some cases it is worth remembering that PHP *IS*
BS>>Well, I'm not quite sure of this. Almost EVERY new piece of code
BS>>Alexander posted on php.internals was followed by one or more
BS>>revisions within one or two days! For me, this means that the chance
BS>>that the 'final' code he gives most likely isn't perfect at all...
The point is, howev
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> I understand that you are fully confident that you code would always
work.
Well, I'm not quite sure of this. Almost EVERY new piece of code
Alexander posted on php.internals was followed by one or more revisions
within one or two days! For me, this means that the ch
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:20:33 +0300
"Alexander Valyalkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:11:07 +0400, Antony Dovgal
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:06:31 +0300
> > "Alexander Valyalkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I can't find any serious rea
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:11:07 +0400, Antony Dovgal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:06:31 +0300
"Alexander Valyalkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't find any serious reason to apply the pathes into the current
PHP4 and PHP5 versions.
Yup. Me too.
I can't find any reason to ap
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:55:56 +0300
"Alexander Valyalkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:48:35 +0200, Bert Slagter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> As you could notice, I provide majority of my patches with standalone
> test applications, which could be used to track possible
AV>>I can't find any serious reason to apply the pathes into the current
AV>>PHP4 and PHP5 versions.
PHP5 is in freeze now. Meaning, no changes are done unless they are
absolutely critical. The reason is that we want PHP5 to be sufficiently
tested and be confident that it is working before relea
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:06:31 +0300
"Alexander Valyalkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't find any serious reason to apply the pathes into the current
> PHP4 and PHP5 versions.
Yup. Me too.
I can't find any reason to apply not tested patches to both stable &
unstable branches.
---
WBR,
Anton
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:56:37 +0100, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Once PHP5 is out - THEN the sorts of fixes Alexander is suggesting could
be looked at - but not until then.
Once PHP5 is out - THEN all of my fixes will safely forgotten, on my
opinion :)
I can't find any serious reaso
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:48:35 +0200, Bert Slagter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas Goyne wrote:
As a user, I personally see placing new features over making old
features work better a large mistake. Perhaps that was necessary back
in the days of PHP3, but its been a very long time since I've
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Lester Caine wrote:
> Steph wrote:
> >>The next question is - are both PHP4 and PHP5 going to be run in
> >>parallel, like Apache 1 and 2 so that neither gets finished ;)
> >
> >
> > Darn.. y'mean PHP 4 isn't finished? ;)
>
> Well is it approved for use with Apache2?
That ha
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Scott MacVicar wrote:
> If Alexander could provide proper benchmarks from PHP rather than
> separate C++ files and if the strings changes could be tested thoroughly
> with multiple values.
>
> I think improving performance would be great, there isn't a developer
> devoted to i
I think Fastcgi is a solution to make non-threadsafe PHP extionsion to work
with Apache2... that's why I develop my
Apache2 module mod_fcgid, it's available on fastcgi.coremail.cn.
I think the community will not accept this module as a part of PHP now, but
I will make another try when the PHP5.1 is
If Alexander could provide proper benchmarks from PHP rather than
separate C++ files and if the strings changes could be tested thoroughly
with multiple values.
I think improving performance would be great, there isn't a developer
devoted to improving what already exists.
Scott
Bert Slagter wr
Steph wrote:
The next question is - are both PHP4 and PHP5 going to be run in
parallel, like Apache 1 and 2 so that neither gets finished ;)
Darn.. y'mean PHP 4 isn't finished? ;)
Well is it approved for use with Apache2?
--
Lester Caine
-
L.S.Caine Electronic Service
> The next question is - are both PHP4 and PHP5 going to be run in
> parallel, like Apache 1 and 2 so that neither gets finished ;)
Darn.. y'mean PHP 4 isn't finished? ;)
>
> --
> Lester Caine
> -
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runti
Thomas Goyne wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:46:01 -0400, Jason Garber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
I would say that the priority on developing PHP is:
1. Bug Fixes from bugs.php.net
2. Features that are slated for upcoming versions of PHP
3. Recoding old functions to make them faster and more s
Thomas Goyne wrote:
As a user, I personally see placing new features over making old
features work better a large mistake. Perhaps that was necessary back
in the days of PHP3, but its been a very long time since I've run into
simply not being able to do something. Quite often, however, I've
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:46:01 -0400, Jason Garber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
I would say that the priority on developing PHP is:
1. Bug Fixes from bugs.php.net
2. Features that are slated for upcoming versions of PHP
3. Recoding old functions to make them faster and more stable where
needed
Hey Alexander,
It appears from your posts that you are a very knowledgeable coder who
knows how to improve and increase the performance, stability, and security
of the PHP program. I think your input could be very valuable.
I think there would be a more, let's say, graceful, way of giving your
Dude.
You need to brush up a bit on the inter-personal skills. Starting a
flame-war or dick-waving contest on this list is probably not the best
way to get your patches accepted.
George
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:47:29 +0200 (CEST), Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Alexander Valyalkin wrote:
Today I checked file /win32/readdir.c
Below you can view its source with my comments.
Just a little notice that you succesfully made it into my killfilter.
Great j
47 matches
Mail list logo
