On 11/03/12 22:55, Michael Wallner wrote:
> wat?
>
> The new hashes are correct. I'm awfully sorry that there has been so much
> trouble with the tiger hashes, but it happened and cannot be undone.
>
Whops, sorry. I got confused on this thread.
Change the order of what I said, then. Let the correct
> It'd be worse to keep the wrong behavior, providing as tiger what it is not.
> What can be done is to add a "tiger192,3-broken php5.4" hash for BC of
> those which may have used the new one.
> It's serious enough so I'd consider it a factor for a new minor in short
> time, but not for setting in
On 09/03/12 02:05, Adam Harvey wrote:
> On 9 March 2012 00:11, Remi Collet wrote:
>> Le 08/03/2012 09:03, Michael Wallner a écrit :
>>> Sorry for the delay, but I already explained the issue in
>>> the bug report: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61291
>> Thanks, for the explanation.
> I'm still co
On 03/08/2012 05:05 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
Agreed. I'm happy to mark them as XFAIL if that's what's expected. Mike?
Adam
If the 5.4 behavior is deemed correct for 5.4+, then the expected output
should be updated for 5.4+ tests - they should not be XFAIL.
The UPGRADING file, migration doc,
On 9 March 2012 00:11, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 08/03/2012 09:03, Michael Wallner a écrit :
>> Sorry for the delay, but I already explained the issue in
>> the bug report: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=61291
>
> Thanks, for the explanation.
I'm still concerned about the idea that the output of a
2012/3/8 Remi Collet
>
> But mhash_001.phpt and mhash_003.phpt should not fail
> (if we want a great PHP with 0 test failed).
>
Hi, all
That's what I would like to have ...
It would be perfect if new versions were not brought out if some tests
still fail.
I read some posts in the past before I
Le 08/03/2012 09:03, Michael Wallner a écrit :
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:52:52 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
>
>>
>> Using a simple C program (linked against libmash)
>>
>> Hash: fdb9019a79c33a95677e2097abae91eb0de00b3054bb5c39
>>
>> So the result from php <= 5.3.10 seems the right one.
>
> Sorry for
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:52:52 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
>
> Using a simple C program (linked against libmash)
>
> Hash: fdb9019a79c33a95677e2097abae91eb0de00b3054bb5c39
>
> So the result from php <= 5.3.10 seems the right one.
Sorry for the delay, but I already explained the issue in
the bug re
Le 05/03/2012 17:44, Remi Collet a écrit :
> Perhaps, the new result is the right one... but I don't find any other
> tool to check it...
Using a simple C program (linked against libmash)
Hash: fdb9019a79c33a95677e2097abae91eb0de00b3054bb5c39
So the result from php <= 5.3.10 seems the right one
