Den 2015-11-23 kl. 08:28, skrev Anatol Belski:
Hi,
-Original Message-
From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 11:20 PM
To: Anthony Ferrara ; Zeev Suraski
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] INDRECT in arrays causes count() to
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Phil Sturgeon
wrote:
> It sounds like a fix exists which people are happy with, and some
> folks are ok not making another RC. Discuss that aspect. Do a little
> poll on that.
Done. Here is a little poll:
http://vote.pollcode.com/92997454
The conversation is STILL not about the severity of the bug, it's now
about playing the blame game of whose fault this is that PR got bad,
that people are being meanies to those that are working hard (not
true) and repeating the same mantra over and over again:
> I still don't see anyone going str
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 09:49 AM, Phil Sturgeon wrote:
>> The "There will always be bugs" argument is a strawman, nobody is
>> saying wait until it's perfect.
>>
>> People in this thread are consistently conflating "there will always
>> be bugs" with
Zeev,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
>> On 23 בנוב׳ 2015, at 15:21, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>
>> Zeev and all,
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>>
>>> No, but both the seriousness of the bug AND the simplicity of the fix sit
>>> squarely ou
> Am 23.11.2015 um 15:52 schrieb Rasmus Lerdorf :
>
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 15:21, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>
>> Rasmus,
>>
>>> I think this was mostly a PR failure on my part actually. If I/we are a bit
>>> more careful about how we handle similar issues and the people lurking with
>>> itchy
> On 23 בנוב׳ 2015, at 15:51, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 15:21, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>
>> Rasmus,
>>
>>> I think this was mostly a PR failure on my part actually. If I/we are a bit
>>> more careful about how we handle similar issues and the people lurking with
>>> itc
On Nov 23, 2015, at 15:21, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> Rasmus,
>
>> I think this was mostly a PR failure on my part actually. If I/we are a bit
>> more careful about how we handle similar issues and the people lurking with
>> itchy Twitter trigger fingers would spend a bit more time looking int
> On 23 בנוב׳ 2015, at 15:21, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> Zeev and all,
>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>> No, but both the seriousness of the bug AND the simplicity of the fix sit
>> squarely outside any sort of "critical" definition.
>
> Perhaps, except that t
Hey:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Anthony Ferrara
wrote:
> Zeev and all,
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 23 בנוב׳ 2015, at 14:04, Joe Watkins wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> No one is expecting 0.0 or any version to be bug free, but the
> simplicity of the f
On 23.11.2015, at 04:02, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 00:48, Adam Harvey wrote:
>>
>> Here's an alternative suggestion: we've previously switched to one
>> week RC cycles late in the piece when trying to get major releases
>> stabilised and we're at the point of only fixing one
Zeev and all,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>
>> On 23 בנוב׳ 2015, at 14:04, Joe Watkins wrote:
>>
>>
>> No one is expecting 0.0 or any version to be bug free, but the simplicity of
>> the fix says nothing about the seriousness of the bug. I think it quite
>> serious _
On Nov 23, 2015, at 15:05, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>> On 23 בנוב׳ 2015, at 14:04, Joe Watkins wrote:
>>
>>
>> No one is expecting 0.0 or any version to be bug free, but the simplicity of
>> the fix says nothing about the seriousness of the bug. I think it quite
>> serious _because_ we are a fe
> On 23 בנוב׳ 2015, at 14:04, Joe Watkins wrote:
>
>
> No one is expecting 0.0 or any version to be bug free, but the simplicity of
> the fix says nothing about the seriousness of the bug. I think it quite
> serious _because_ we are a few days from GA, had this been found a month ago
> it w
> genuinely feel strongly enough that this is indicative of further
problems and another RC will provide us with more time to find similar
issues or perhaps just give everyone a sense of confidence in the release.
It's both of those things.
Another week isn't going to cost us anything.
We don't
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 10:35, Derick Rethans wrote:
>>
>>> On November 23, 2015 10:08:18 AM GMT+01:00, Rasmus Lerdorf
>>> wrote:
On 11/23/2015 09:49 AM, Phil Sturgeon wrote:
The "There will always be bugs" argument is a strawman,
On Nov 23, 2015, at 10:35, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
>> On November 23, 2015 10:08:18 AM GMT+01:00, Rasmus Lerdorf
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2015 09:49 AM, Phil Sturgeon wrote:
>>> The "There will always be bugs" argument is a strawman, nobody is
>>> saying wait until it's perfect.
>>>
>>> People i
On November 23, 2015 10:08:18 AM GMT+01:00, Rasmus Lerdorf
wrote:
>On 11/23/2015 09:49 AM, Phil Sturgeon wrote:
>> The "There will always be bugs" argument is a strawman, nobody is
>> saying wait until it's perfect.
>>
>> People in this thread are consistently conflating "there will always
>> be
> On 23 בנוב׳ 2015, at 0:35, Rafael Dohms wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> Let's get 7.0.0 out the door and get ourselves on
>> track for regular point releases without any of this "perfect-release"
>> stress.
>>
>> -Rasmus
>
> Can I just bring us back to
> On 23 בנוב׳ 2015, at 10:08, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/2015 09:49 AM, Phil Sturgeon wrote:
>> The "There will always be bugs" argument is a strawman, nobody is
>> saying wait until it's perfect.
>>
>> People in this thread are consistently conflating "there will always
>> be bugs" wi
On 23 November 2015 at 09:08, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 09:49 AM, Phil Sturgeon wrote:
> > The "There will always be bugs" argument is a strawman, nobody is
> > saying wait until it's perfect.
> >
> > People in this thread are consistently conflating "there will always
> > be bugs" wi
On 11/23/2015 09:49 AM, Phil Sturgeon wrote:
> The "There will always be bugs" argument is a strawman, nobody is
> saying wait until it's perfect.
>
> People in this thread are consistently conflating "there will always
> be bugs" with "lets just ignore this bug which is 'around critical'
> and cr
I can only agree with Phil here. +1 for 1 week RCs if we're aiming at Dec
3rd anyway.
Thanks, Niklas
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
> Hey:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Joe Watkins wrote:
>
>> Morning Anatol,
>>
>> > People that don't test RC won't start to test any later RC anyway.
>>
>> This wasn't reported by "people", this was found by one of us.
>>
>> The proble
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
> Hey:
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Anthony Ferrara
> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > It appears that in our efforts to optimize PHP 7 we've introduced an
> > inconsistency into array handling. This is demonstrated by this
> > script: https:/
i,
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 11:20 PM
> > > To: Anthony Ferrara ; Zeev Suraski >
> > > Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> > > Subject:
;> Hi,
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
>> > Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 11:20 PM
>> > To: Anthony Ferrara ; Zeev Suraski
>> > Cc: internals@lists.php.net
>> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV]
Nov 23, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Anatol Belski
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 11:20 PM
> > To: Anthony Ferrara ; Zeev Suraski
> > Cc: internals@lists.php
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 11:20 PM
> To: Anthony Ferrara ; Zeev Suraski
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] INDRECT in arrays causes count() to become
> unpredictab
I can hardly believe this conversation has gone the way it has ...
I'm only happy the release managers are the ones to make the decision, and
have no reason to distrust their judgement.
Can we get a release manager to start saying reasonable things please ...
Cheers
Joe
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 11/22/2015 06:18 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>> Zeev,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>>
On 22 בנוב׳ 2015, at 0:47, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
I think this is significant enough to be a blocker to
On Nov 23, 2015, at 00:48, Adam Harvey wrote:
>
> Here's an alternative suggestion: we've previously switched to one
> week RC cycles late in the piece when trying to get major releases
> stabilised and we're at the point of only fixing one or two things per
> RC. That's exactly where we are now.
On 22 November 2015 at 14:19, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 11/22/2015 06:18 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>> Zeev,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO, unless we think fixing this would require breaking binary
>>> compatibility (which I don't think is the case) -
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Let's get 7.0.0 out the door and get ourselves on
> track for regular point releases without any of this "perfect-release"
> stress.
>
> -Rasmus
>
>
Can I just bring us back to a week ago when we spent a couple days
discussing the "new" re
On 11/22/2015 06:18 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Zeev,
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>>> On 22 בנוב׳ 2015, at 0:47, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>>
>>> I think this is significant enough to be a blocker to gold and that we
>>> should fix it prior to release.
>>>
>>> Tho
Zeev,
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
>> On 22 בנוב׳ 2015, at 0:47, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>
>> I think this is significant enough to be a blocker to gold and that we
>> should fix it prior to release.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> IMHO, unless we think fixing this would requir
Hey:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Anthony Ferrara
wrote:
> All,
>
> It appears that in our efforts to optimize PHP 7 we've introduced an
> inconsistency into array handling. This is demonstrated by this
> script: https://3v4l.org/hVcAB
>
> $a = 1;
> unset($a);
> var_dump(count($GLOBALS), $GL
> On 22 בנוב׳ 2015, at 0:47, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> I think this is significant enough to be a blocker to gold and that we
> should fix it prior to release.
>
> Thoughts?
>
IMHO, unless we think fixing this would require breaking binary compatibility
(which I don't think is the case) - t
38 matches
Mail list logo
