Hi,
Today we will package and tag PHP 5.3 alpha3.
Any commits to the 5.3 branch today should be first ok'ed by Johannes.
For windows build fixes Pierre should be kept in the loop.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscr
Here's a test for that (I don't have php-src karma) if anyone would
care to commit it. Passes on 5.2.6, but fails on 5.3alpha3-dev
FWIW, I committed that patch today.
I'd like for it to pass by RC1 (-:
S
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://ww
Pierre Joye napsal(a):
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2008/11/10 Jaroslav Hanslík <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Pierre Joye napsal(a):
php_pspell.dll
php_snmp.dll
snmp and pspell are likely to do not be present in the next release
and maybe not in the
Please bring up any areas you are concerned about that we might have
forgotten.
PHP_5_3 as of this morning does not contain that patch that makes
ArrayObject behave like an array (reset()).
Here's a test for that (I don't have php-src karma) if anyone would
care to commit it. Passes on 5.
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 18:06, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pierre Joye wrote:
pecl4win is dead and will not be restored anymore. In the next weeks,
pecl.php.net will provide the DLLs based on releases instead of random
snapshots, for each active branches (5.2
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Jared Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But where?
>
> pecl4win.php.net hasn't compiled APC since January, and certainly nothing
> for 5.3
pecl4win is dead and will not be restored anymore. In the next weeks,
pecl.php.net will provide the DLLs based on releas
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 18:06, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> pecl4win is dead and will not be restored anymore. In the next weeks,
>> pecl.php.net will provide the DLLs based on releases instead of random
>> snapshots, for each active branches (5.2, 5.3 and HEAD
Pierre Joye wrote:
pecl4win is dead and will not be restored anymore. In the next weeks,
pecl.php.net will provide the DLLs based on releases instead of random
snapshots, for each active branches (5.2, 5.3 and HEAD).
Does this mean we will have the same problem with pecl that we currently have
> -Original Message-
> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 10 November 2008 15:46
> To: Jared Williams
> Cc: Lester Caine; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] alpha3 or forever hold your peace
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Jared Willi
008 12:32
> To: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] alpha3 or forever hold your peace
>
> Jared Williams wrote:
> > APC is another missing extension.
>
> apc is in pecl - so would be provided with the PECL binary.
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> ---
On 10.11.2008, at 16:06, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2008/11/10 Jaroslav Hanslík <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Pierre Joye napsal(a):
php_pspell.dll
php_snmp.dll
snmp and pspell are likely to do not be present in the next rele
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/10 Jaroslav Hanslík <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Pierre Joye napsal(a):
>>
php_pspell.dll
php_snmp.dll
>>>
>>> snmp and pspell are likely to do not be present in the next release
>>> and maybe not in the
Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> 2008/11/10 Jaroslav Hanslík <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Pierre Joye napsal(a):
>>
php_pspell.dll
php_snmp.dll
>>> snmp and pspell are likely to do not be present in the next release
>>> and maybe not in the final release (windows only). The underlying
>>> librari
2008/11/10 Jaroslav Hanslík <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Pierre Joye napsal(a):
>
>>> php_pspell.dll
>>> php_snmp.dll
>>
>> snmp and pspell are likely to do not be present in the next release
>> and maybe not in the final release (windows only). The underlying
>> libraries are not portable enough to be u
Pierre Joye napsal(a):
php_pspell.dll
php_snmp.dll
snmp and pspell are likely to do not be present in the next release
and maybe not in the final release (windows only). The underlying
libraries are not portable enough to be used on windows and the
versions used before have critical issues (se
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Current windows alpha does not have
> php_mcrypt.dll
mcrypt is present (builtin)
> php_dba.dll
> php_gmp.dll
They will be in the next release.
> php_pspell.dll
> php_snmp.dll
snmp and pspell are likely to do not be pr
Jared Williams wrote:
APC is another missing extension.
apc is in pecl - so would be provided with the PECL binary.
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http
> -Original Message-
> From: Lester Caine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 10 November 2008 08:23
> To: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] alpha3 or forever hold your peace
>
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > I just wanted to ask everybody to skim over th
Lester Caine wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Pierre there are some 44 extensions in the 5.2.x snapshot and only 30
odd in the 5.3.x snapshot - I don't have time to go through every one
to check their status. Is that information available somewhere?
This is why I asked to check the NEWS file:
Johannes Schlüter wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 12:41 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>> 1. Change ext/phar to be disabled by default
>
> Is that the only case? We have a few new extensions, fileinfo is enabled
> by default at the moment, hash is, sqlite3 is, ...
>
> So the question is: What's the p
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 12:41 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> 1. Change ext/phar to be disabled by default
Is that the only case? We have a few new extensions, fileinfo is enabled
by default at the moment, hash is, sqlite3 is, ...
So the question is: What's the purpose of bundling extensions and what
On 10.11.2008, at 12:06, Jani Taskinen wrote:
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Jani,
Monday, November 10, 2008, 11:41:44 AM, you wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Hi,
I just wanted to ask everybody to skim over the changes for PHP
5.3 we have in CVS (especially bigger stuff like the addition/
r
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 09:57 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
> It is why alpha releases are for. If we don't merge it we should
> simply drop it in HEAD and forget it. This code has been there for
> years now, it is time to bring it to a stable branch. The same applies
> for other code in HEAD not having
On 10.11.2008, at 12:27, Jani Taskinen wrote:
4. Output buffering rewrite MFH: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=42641&edit=1
If there is a significant show of hands of people that feel that the
code in HEAD is so much easier to maintain, that suddenly they feel
more inclined than before to
On 10.11.2008, at 12:04, Jani Taskinen wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 10.11.2008, at 11:41, Jani Taskinen wrote:
2. Change ext/ereg to be disabled by default (scheduled to be
removed in PHP 6, iirc?)
IIRC we are not yet in agreement on the removal. AFAIK its already
an extension in
Jani Taskinen wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Hi,
I just wanted to ask everybody to skim over the changes for PHP 5.3 we
have in CVS (especially bigger stuff like the addition/removal of an
extension etc.). Please bring up any areas you are concerned about
that we might have forgotten. Howev
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Pierre there are some 44 extensions in the 5.2.x snapshot and only 30
odd in the 5.3.x snapshot - I don't have time to go through every one
to check their status. Is that information available somewhere?
This is why I asked to check the NEWS file:
http://cvs.php.net/vi
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Jani,
Monday, November 10, 2008, 11:41:44 AM, you wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Hi,
I just wanted to ask everybody to skim over the changes for PHP 5.3 we
have in CVS (especially bigger stuff like the addition/removal of an
extension etc.). Please bring up any
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
On 10.11.2008, at 11:41, Jani Taskinen wrote:
2. Change ext/ereg to be disabled by default (scheduled to be removed
in PHP 6, iirc?)
IIRC we are not yet in agreement on the removal. AFAIK its already an
extension in PHP6, but I am not sure if we wanted to contin
Hello Jani,
Monday, November 10, 2008, 11:41:44 AM, you wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just wanted to ask everybody to skim over the changes for PHP 5.3 we
>> have in CVS (especially bigger stuff like the addition/removal of an
>> extension etc.). Please bring up any areas yo
On 10.11.2008, at 11:41, Jani Taskinen wrote:
2. Change ext/ereg to be disabled by default (scheduled to be
removed in PHP 6, iirc?)
IIRC we are not yet in agreement on the removal. AFAIK its already an
extension in PHP6, but I am not sure if we wanted to continue with the
proposal t
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
>>
>> 2) We still need someone to do upgrades to new parameter-parsing api in
>>b) ext/interbase (any volunteers?)
>
> Where will I find some help on actually what needs doing? I presume that the
On 10.11.2008, at 11:42, Lester Caine wrote:
Pierre Joye wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
There is still the problems with windows builds of PHP5.3. I've
not been
able to test anything on new builds since php_interbas
Pierre Joye wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
There is still the problems with windows builds of PHP5.3. I've not been
able to test anything on new builds since php_interbase is not being
compiled. I've not checked what th
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Hi,
I just wanted to ask everybody to skim over the changes for PHP 5.3 we
have in CVS (especially bigger stuff like the addition/removal of an
extension etc.). Please bring up any areas you are concerned about that
we might have forgotten. However I am not interested
Alexey Zakhlestin wrote:
2) We still need someone to do upgrades to new parameter-parsing api in
b) ext/interbase (any volunteers?)
Where will I find some help on actually what needs doing? I presume that the
Linux build has not been updated although I'm not actually seeing a problem at
p
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> There is still the problems with windows builds of PHP5.3. I've not been
> able to test anything on new builds since php_interbase is not being
> compiled. I've not checked what the other dozen or
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to ask everybody to skim over the changes for PHP 5.3 we have
> in CVS (especially bigger stuff like the addition/removal of an extension
> etc.). Please bring up any areas you are concerned about
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
I just wanted to ask everybody to skim over the changes for PHP 5.3 we
have in CVS (especially bigger stuff like the addition/removal of an
extension etc.). Please bring up any areas you are concerned about that
we might have forgotten. However I am not interested in pe
Hi,
I just wanted to ask everybody to skim over the changes for PHP 5.3 we
have in CVS (especially bigger stuff like the addition/removal of an
extension etc.). Please bring up any areas you are concerned about
that we might have forgotten. However I am not interested in people
bringing u
hi,
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To quote myself on this topic:
> "These are all convincing arguments to have done this earlier. But Johannes
> and I are a bit worried, that this code did not see that much testing since
> it was checked in to HEAD
On 07.11.2008, at 09:30, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi!
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Hannes Magnusson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 22:00, Lukas Kahwe Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
This are tentatively looking like alpha3 could hit on November 18th.
So everybody pleas
hi!
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Hannes Magnusson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 22:00, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This are tentatively looking like alpha3 could hit on November 18th.
>> So everybody please try to get whatever you are working
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 22:00, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This are tentatively looking like alpha3 could hit on November 18th.
> So everybody please try to get whatever you are working on ready to be
> finished and committed by no later than 13th. So that packaging can ha
Hi,
This are tentatively looking like alpha3 could hit on November 18th.
So everybody please try to get whatever you are working on ready to be
finished and committed by no later than 13th. So that packaging can
happen on a stable tree on the 17th.
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTE
In response to Larry Garfield's comment that "[t]here's nothing
"familiar" about :: to 99.99% of PHP developers who haven't already
been playing with the alphas" I'd like to point out that since PHP
5.1, the double colon is effectively used as a namespace operator by
extensions, in the sense that e
2008/9/29 jvlad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > So as prevoius speaker suggested, and I personaly got to conclusion
> in
> > > > other thread that ":" is ideal. Short, isn't taken.
> > >
> > > $a = $b?A:B:C:D;
> >
> > Will _you_ write such code? No. Will anybody from this list write such
> > code?
>
>
Le lundi 29 septembre 2008 à 13:48 -0500, Larry Garfield a écrit :
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:30:00 +0300, "Vesselin Kenashkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > My proposal is (if possible/reasonable/performance wise of course) to have
> > a
> > fatal error thrown when during the parse time the e
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:30:00 +0300, "Vesselin Kenashkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> My proposal is (if possible/reasonable/performance wise of course) to have
> a
> fatal error thrown when during the parse time the engine discovers
> duplicates like the one described above. What is the point t
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 19:24 +0200, Janusz Lewandowski wrote:
> Monday 29 September 2008 18:35:45 Stefan Walk napisał(a):
> > On Monday 29 September 2008 18:05:48 Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> > > So as prevoius speaker suggested, and I personaly got to conclusion in
> > > other thread that ":" is ideal.
> > > So as prevoius speaker suggested, and I personaly got to conclusion in
> > > other thread that ":" is ideal. Short, isn't taken.
> >
> > $a = $b?A:B:C:D;
>
> Will _you_ write such code? No. Will anybody from this list write such
> code?
You may want to write
$a = $b?A:B:C
and how would php
On 9/29/08, Stefan Walk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So as prevoius speaker suggested, and I personaly got to conclusion in
> > other thread that ":" is ideal. Short, isn't taken.
>
> $a = $b?A:B:C:D;
It's only a problem when you use fully qualified names inside a
ternary operation, and can
Monday 29 September 2008 18:35:45 Stefan Walk napisał(a):
> On Monday 29 September 2008 18:05:48 Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> > So as prevoius speaker suggested, and I personaly got to conclusion in
> > other thread that ":" is ideal. Short, isn't taken.
>
> $a = $b?A:B:C:D;
Will _you_ write such code?
On Monday 29 September 2008 18:05:48 Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> So as prevoius speaker suggested, and I personaly got to conclusion in
> other thread that ":" is ideal. Short, isn't taken.
$a = $b?A:B:C:D;
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.ph
+1 for : from me.
Ternary. Operator. Trouble.
Otherwise it'd get my vote too.
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
I thought that : was rejected because of the terniary operator? I'm not
going to search now for the discussion but for sure there were serious
objections against : , otherwise it would be natural to use it. How you
propose to handle the ambiguities like:
Parenthesis are a solution, but I have no
2008/9/29 Jordi Boggiano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Ryan Panning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1, I second this completely
> >
> > From someone who *was* using namespaces developing against the 5.3
> branch,
> > this is going to happen sooner or later. I found that :
Hi,
Ok before we all go crazy with the NS separator debate, some reading
(which also links to a few interesting posts/sites):
http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=113313170231815&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=113345477123705&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=117742643931293&w=2
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Ryan Panning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1, I second this completely
>
> From someone who *was* using namespaces developing against the 5.3 branch,
> this is going to happen sooner or later. I found that :: just causes to many
> questions when used in namespaces.
Steph Fox wrote:
I don't want to see that whole ns separator debate all over again any
more than you do, but I really don't see a good way to avoid it... sorry.
+1, I second this completely
From someone who *was* using namespaces developing against the 5.3
branch, this is going to happen soon
+1, or: "Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'"
- David
On 28.09.2008, at 16:29, Steph Fox wrote:
Hi Greg,
The patch I posted here:
http://pear.php.net/~greg/ns.element.patch.txt
does exactly what you are talking about. For some reason, some
people
find this too difficult to digest. I've
Hi Greg,
The patch I posted here:
http://pear.php.net/~greg/ns.element.patch.txt
does exactly what you are talking about. For some reason, some people
find this too difficult to digest. I've already expressed my opinion on
the matter (after all, I did spend almost a week developing the patch
jvlad wrote:
>> Adding support for functions, constants and even variables is actually
>> quite do-able with the solution I suggested (different separator between
>> namespace name and function/constant/variable name) and can be added
>> easily.
>
>> Adding support for functions, constants and ev
> Adding support for functions, constants and even variables is actually
> quite do-able with the solution I suggested (different separator between
> namespace name and function/constant/variable name) and can be added
> easily.
> Adding support for functions, constants and even variables is actu
Hi Greg,
Steph: the limited solution proposed by Stas and company (removing
functions [and I would add constants]/fixing name resolution) *is* a
basic solution that can be expanded on. I outlined the steps in my
reply. It's the best solution to the problem, not an imperfect one. A
namespace s
I would definitely have to agree. I would much prefer to have a minimal
solution implemented and then to iterate over it in the future than to try
to figure out the perfect implementation the first time.
Just from watching where the thread about namespaces has gone, I would
definitely have to say
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Greg Beaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to respectfully disagree with both of you:
>
> Stas: choosing an imperfect solution when a better one already exists is
> just plain stupid, and isn't what you want *or* what you suggested - the
> solution you, Liz, Ma
Steph Fox wrote:
> Oh Stas, we have to fall out now!
>
>> Imperfect solution is much better than perpetual absence of any solution.
>
> See, I'm not sure I agree with that.
>
> I think 'imperfect but basic solution that can be expanded on' would be
> a better approach than trying to do it all in
Hi!
And I still think putting it off to PHP 6 would be a smart move. It's
the major thing that's holding up 5.3.
Nothing is "holding" anything. Lukas has release schedule, and namespace
implementation will fit it.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.
Oh Stas, we have to fall out now!
Imperfect solution is much better than perpetual absence of any solution.
See, I'm not sure I agree with that.
I think 'imperfect but basic solution that can be expanded on' would be a
better approach than trying to do it all in one hit.
And I still think
Hi!
Does that mean we can drop namespace support until 6.0?
Please?
Rationale:
1) It's uber-contentious, and all the good stuff's only just starting to
turn up that would allow sane design decisions
I don't know what "uber-contentios" means, but no solution is going to
satisfy 100% of peop
Hey Lukas, Johannes, all...
We are not yet ready to schedule alpha3, but I am hoping we can do it in
the first half of October. This is just a heads up to tell everybody that
yes there will be an alpha3 and a general timeframe.
This is not an invitation to go crazy and start committing feat
Hi,
We are not yet ready to schedule alpha3, but I am hoping we can do it
in the first half of October. This is just a heads up to tell
everybody that yes there will be an alpha3 and a general timeframe.
This is not an invitation to go crazy and start committing features at
all. If you ha
73 matches
Mail list logo
