On 16.08.2020 at 23:31, Michael Voříšek - ČVUT FEL wrote:
> I registered on https://wiki.php.net/start?do=register
>
>> To get authorization you must send a quick introduction to the
>> internals mailing list. Mention your wiki username and say what you're
>> planning to do. This email lets us kno
Hello,
I registered on https://wiki.php.net/start?do=register
To get authorization you must send a quick introduction to the internals mailing list. Mention your wiki username and say what you're planning to do. This email lets us know you're a human (and not a robot) and what you'll be working
Den søn. 16. aug. 2020 kl. 12.08 skrev Michael Voříšek - ČVUT FEL
:
>
> Hello,
>
> based on https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting voting access is offered to
> people who:
>
> - contributed to PHP source - I have made several smaller contributions
> to php-src incl. + some core xdebug optimization
>
> -
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019, 9:34 PM Zeev Suraski
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 2:18 AM Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> Hi Zeev,
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, 4:55 PM Zeev Suraski >
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I've read the detailed and very informative feedback from both Pierre and
>>> Dan, as well as feedback from others (Nik
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 2:18 AM Pierre Joye wrote:
> Hi Zeev,
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, 4:55 PM Zeev Suraski
>> All,
>>
>> I've read the detailed and very informative feedback from both Pierre and
>> Dan, as well as feedback from others (Nikita & more) over the last few
>> days, and I'm now convin
Hi Zeev,
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, 4:55 PM Zeev Suraski All,
>
> I've read the detailed and very informative feedback from both Pierre and
> Dan, as well as feedback from others (Nikita & more) over the last few
> days, and I'm now convinced that breaking the Voting part away from the
> Workflow part
Morning,
Nikita has clarified the voting period in the RFC, two weeks.
Not quite done yet.
Cheers
Joe
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Sara Golemon wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Stanislav Malyshev
> wrote:
> > The vote for https://wiki.php.net/rfc/callable-types started on
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> The vote for https://wiki.php.net/rfc/callable-types started on May
> 23th, but the RFC does not have vote end date. For minimal voting period
> - 1 week - if should have already ended, unless authors have the reason
> to extend the votin
Levi Morrison wrote:
>> Whatever you want to improve, please consider that the PHP wiki is
>> driven by DokuWiki which needs to get updated from time to time (lately
>> there have been two updates every year[1]; this is not accounting any
>> necessary updates to DokuWiki plugins). These updates s
> Whatever you want to improve, please consider that the PHP wiki is
> driven by DokuWiki which needs to get updated from time to time (lately
> there have been two updates every year[1]; this is not accounting any
> necessary updates to DokuWiki plugins). These updates seem to be
> painful alread
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Christoph Becker wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> However, as of today, you are the blocking point when it comes to
>> improve the wiki RFCs, registration and voting areas.And this is
>> really becoming a problem. I am not talking about irregularities and
>> the l
Pierre Joye wrote:
> However, as of today, you are the blocking point when it comes to
> improve the wiki RFCs, registration and voting areas.And this is
> really becoming a problem. I am not talking about irregularities and
> the likes and I agree that it may not be fair to start bitching about
>
On Mar 19, 2015 5:20 AM, "Hannes Magnusson"
wrote:
>
> I have asked you before to stop harassing me, and stop spreading these
> lies and defamation before.
> Furthermore I have asked you to stop emailing all together.
>
> I have asked you very politely several times before.
>
> Please refrain for
I have asked you before to stop harassing me, and stop spreading these
lies and defamation before.
Furthermore I have asked you to stop emailing all together.
I have asked you very politely several times before.
Please refrain for talking about me or to me ever again. I will take
legal actions if
hi,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Hannes Magnusson
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Sebastian B.-Hagensen
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2015-03-17 20:55 GMT+01:00 Hannes Magnusson :
>>> If you need to confirm the statistics, or gather more background data,
>>> then feel free to contact me pr
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Sebastian B.-Hagensen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2015-03-17 20:55 GMT+01:00 Hannes Magnusson :
>> If you need to confirm the statistics, or gather more background data,
>> then feel free to contact me privately, off the list, and I'll get you
>> the account approval dates (k
Hi,
2015-03-17 20:55 GMT+01:00 Hannes Magnusson :
> If you need to confirm the statistics, or gather more background data,
> then feel free to contact me privately, off the list, and I'll get you
> the account approval dates (karma and/or wiki).
While I agree that the issue at hand was not presen
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> All,
>
> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
> decided to pull some stats.
>
> The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went
On 16.03.2015 01:08, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
On 15/03/2015 22:27, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue
writing
this:
https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
Do you know who Kris
> On 16.03.2015, at 15:03, Kristian Köhntopp wrote:
>
> That is me. And I voted no on a broken poposal.
And because some people asked, the kk account is not new.
I have been using PHP since about 1997/98, joining the community around the
times of the first PHP 3.0 beta-releases. Boris Erdmann
> On 15.03.2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> kk - no
That is me. And I voted no on a broken poposal.
K
--
Kristian Köhntopp http://google.com/+KristianKohntopp
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
On 15 March 2015 at 15:23, Levi Morrison wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
> >
> >> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
> >> now. There were a number of voters
2015.03.16. 4:18 ezt írta ("Philip Sturgeon" ):
>
> One rule I liked when I was part of the FIG was that people can only
> vote on votes initiated after they became a member. That stops people
> signing up simply to vote on an RFC which needs more votes either way.
>
> I'm not saying that happened,
Hi!
> One rule I liked when I was part of the FIG was that people can only
> vote on votes initiated after they became a member. That stops people
> signing up simply to vote on an RFC which needs more votes either way.
That makes a lot of sense, though I don't think we had much of this
issue. Fi
One rule I liked when I was part of the FIG was that people can only
vote on votes initiated after they became a member. That stops people
signing up simply to vote on an RFC which needs more votes either way.
I'm not saying that happened, but a simple rule saying "You cannot
vote on any RFC start
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Jordi Boggiano wrote:
> On 15/03/2015 22:27, Derick Rethans wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing
this:
https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/p
On 15/03/2015 22:27, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing
this:
https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
Do you know who Kristian is and how instrumental he was in the
p
On 15/03/2015 19:07, Derick Rethans wrote:
Rowan Collins schreef op 15 maart 2015 17:59:17
GMT+00:00:
On 15/03/2015 14:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
decided
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing
> > this:
> >
> > https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
>
> Do you know who Kristian is and how instrumental he was in the
> proliferation of PHP? How
Hi!
> theory" cries despite Anthony's statement above. As I've already
> indicated, and being a Yes voter, I'm sort of dubious about even my
> own voting rights, and votes of my nature have previously been called
> out as a bad thing by people on both sides of the RFC.
If you think you're not inf
> -Original Message-
> From: Wim Godden [mailto:wim.god...@cu.be]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 11:30 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
>
>
> On 15/03/2015 20:30, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >>
Hi all,
Am 15.03.2015 um 15:19 schrieb Anthony Ferrara:
> ... There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize.
I wondered about who the people are that vote and how they "earned" the
right to do so. I think this kind of confusion could be avoided if
people.php.net would contain a little mor
Hi!
> voting practices. Anthony specifically notes that he is not calling
> them bad, or calling for them to be ignored in the context of the
He's not calling them bad directly, he is calling them "irregularities",
singling them out and arguing that they are the reason the RFC is
currently does n
On 15/03/2015 20:30, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing
this:
https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
Do you know who Kristian is and how instrumental he was in the proliferation
of PHP? How can you bring your
Hi!
> Which post says that we're turning PHP into Java. And to this
> misguided FUD post, that actively asks people to vote no, I can quite
> easily attribute a few more no votes of people that had never voted
> before...
I have seen many messages on the list which I personally consider very
wron
Hi!
> So consider that discussion open.
I guess this would have to happen sooner or later - sooner or later
somebody, when the vote doesn't go their way, would cry "who are all
these people? It can't be right they are all legit, there must be
something wrong". I'm not sure though where this discu
Hi,
On 15 March 2015 at 14:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor that they
> shouldn't be counted. I think it does raise a significant question
> around the voting practices.
I think folk should be cautious about linking the proximity of a
certain RFC t
Can we please stop with this? It's damaging to the language and the
community.
I am a strong believer of STH, no surprise there, but I do not think this
thread should have
been created. Is the php voting process uncontrolled and chaotic with no
real count of voting
members? Hell yes.
This does no
> Which post says that we're turning PHP into Java
I think there are people who want to switch from Java to PHP, maybe they feel
easier with declare(strict...).
Also in the past, some companies switched from PHP to Java because they wanted
more strictness in their backend code.
I don't like dec
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> All,
>
> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
> decided to pull some stats.
>
...
>
> Something that I think we need to discuss as a group.
>
> I don't think it's going to far, if you have people with no clue writing
> this:
>
> https://plus.google.com/+KristianK%C3%B6hntopp/posts/ijoDNH2M8mB
Derick,
Do you know who Kristian is and how instrumental he was in the proliferation
of PHP? How can you bring yourself to say he has no clue?
2015-03-15 20:55 GMT+02:00 Levi Morrison :
> > What we need, is a MANAGER! To manage the Type Hint development. And one
> > that is not doing real development on PHP core, but someone with
> > understanding.
>
> You are basically saying we should hand development of a critical
> language feature o
Rowan Collins schreef op 15 maart 2015 17:59:17
GMT+00:00:
>On 15/03/2015 14:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
>> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
>> decided to pull some stats.
>>
>> The fo
> What we need, is a MANAGER! To manage the Type Hint development. And one
> that is not doing real development on PHP core, but someone with
> understanding.
You are basically saying we should hand development of a critical
language feature over to someone not doing real development on the
langua
Hi Anthony,
I am zimt.
And yes, you are correct, i haven't voted before, infact, I've kept myself
out of all discussions for a long time - for my own reasons,
however after reading into your proposal, the discussion around it, I made
the decision to cast a vote against your RFC.
You can't just t
C'mon guys, vote didn't pass, it's time to do something about it and not
start conspiracy theories (or I will loose hope for humanity completely). I
happened to have a job-free next week, i've been saying for a long time now
that this has to be tackled differently and even layed down some thoughts
On 15/03/2015 14:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
decided to pull some stats.
The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up:
dom - no
eliw - n
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Sturgeon [mailto:pjsturg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 6:31 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: Levi Morrison; Michael Wallner; internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
>
> Literally
On 3/15/15 10:19 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> [...]
> The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up:
> [...]
> eliw - no
> [...]
> Some of these names I recognize from list (sammywg and eliw), but many I do
> not.
> [...]
> I'm not saying that all of these are bad votes. Nor th
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
>> *when* they got an account.
>
> None of these accounts are recent as far as I can tell from my email
> archive. For the record, with the exception of Eli - with whom
I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
*when* they got an account.
As you already said, there's no acceptation date on that site, but it
seems that new accounts are appended to the end of the list -
http://people.php.net/?page=33
Probably better than nothing.
> I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
> *when* they got an account.
None of these accounts are recent as far as I can tell from my email
archive. For the record, with the exception of Eli - with whom I discussed
the reasons he voted against the Coercive RFC - I
>>
>> Is there a way to check when someone got a php.net account/karma?
>>
>>
>> http://people.php.net
>>
>
> I am aware of this, but unless I just missed it that site doesn't show
> *when* they got an account.
Oh, sorry! I thought it reads something like “Account opened: Y-m-d” but that’s
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> On 15 03 2015, at 16:23, Levi Morrison wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
>
> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote
On 15.03.2015 16:44, Pádraic Brady wrote:
>
> I don't think it's ridiculous in a separate thread around discussing
> voting practices. Anthony specifically notes that he is not calling
> them bad, or calling for them to be ignored in the context of the
> current RFCs. Merely noting that their exis
Hi Michael,
On 15 March 2015 at 14:29, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
> Jeez, that is becoming ridiculous. So, if you’re that good in counting, how
> many did not vote before STHv0.3?
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
I
> On 15 03 2015, at 16:23, Levi Morrison wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
>>> now. There were a number of voters
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Michael Wallner wrote:
>
>> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
>> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
>> decided to pull some stats.
>>
>
> On 15 03 2015, at 15:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
> now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
> decided to pull some stats.
>
> The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, Patrick ALLAERT wrote:
> 2015-03-10 16:02 GMT+01:00 Anthony Ferrara :
> >
> > Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no?
> > It's easier to understand, easier to manage and has less possibility
> > of gaming.
>
> That is much more stricter than my tho
On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
> Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no?
> It's easier to understand, easier to manage and has less possibility
> of gaming.
While I generally agree, in the case where there is a small detail
that needs to be addres
Hi,
2015-03-10 12:45 GMT-03:00 Dan Ackroyd :
> On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> >
> > Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no?
> > It's easier to understand, easier to manage and has less possibility
> > of gaming.
>
>
> While I generally agree, in t
2015-03-10 13:52 GMT-03:00 Anthony Ferrara :
> Dan,
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Dan Ackroyd
> wrote:
> > On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> >>
> >> Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no?
> >> It's easier to understand, easier to manage and
Patrick,
My viewpoint is that options in an RFC are dangerous. I would much
rather have a single RFC, with a single vote (yes/no). I think we
should be discouraging the options as much as possible.
The reason is simple: an RFC should be an encapsulated idea, not a
menu of options. The author shou
Dan,
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On 10 March 2015 at 15:02, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>>
>> Can we please come down to a single RFC, with a single vote yes/no?
>> It's easier to understand, easier to manage and has less possibility
>> of gaming.
>
>
> While I generally ag
2015-03-10 16:02 GMT+01:00 Anthony Ferrara :
> Patrick,
>
> My viewpoint is that options in an RFC are dangerous. I would much
> rather have a single RFC, with a single vote (yes/no). I think we
> should be discouraging the options as much as possible.
>
> The reason is simple: an RFC should be an
On Mar 18, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Florian Anderiasch wrote:
> On 03/17/2013 02:12 PM, Clint Priest wrote:
>> Unfortunately my experience with that process has been that many people
>> will vote who had no part in the discussion.
>
> I don't see a point repeating points of discussion when being in
> ag
On 03/17/2013 02:12 PM, Clint Priest wrote:
> Unfortunately my experience with that process has been that many people
> will vote who had no part in the discussion.
I don't see a point repeating points of discussion when being in
agreement with people who already stated their opinion, or being
per
Unfortunately my experience with that process has been that many people
will vote who had no part in the discussion.
On 3/16/2013 3:16 PM, Sherif Ramadan wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Sébastien Durand wrote:
Hi guys,
*I think it could be a nice little improvement to add an extra f
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Sébastien Durand wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> *I think it could be a nice little improvement to add an extra form field
> (*160
> chars max),* that would let users quickly comment on why they voted "yes"
> or "no".*
> *
> *
> *It would help having a better sense of what'
Dan, I'm a PHP developer myself too and I always compile PHP and Apache for
my own (PostgreSQL is good for me as it's packaged for Archlinux). But the
majority is just dumb. And you're right about the bug reports, lots of them
would be just like "it doesn't work because of reasons". But they'd at
l
> That's what Ralf and I suggested all along. By the way, the problem is
> that most of the web developers don't know anything about IT. I guess
> most of them use Windows (and you can't expect a Windows user to
> compile stuff), and the majority of the other half uses Ubuntu and
> never even saw t
ry Garfield
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
Hi!
> down. Right or wrong, good or bad, the gulf between PHP developer and C
> developer is *huge*, and doing anything at all with the PHP engine,
We're not talking here writing code in C. We're talking here t
But if even that is too hard, how about making something like spec file
for RPM and a script that d/ls a snapshot and then builds a RPM from it?
Installing RPM shouldn't be too hard?
Why reinvent the wheel? The open build service already exists and does
just that. No need for hundreds of laymen
Hi!
> down. Right or wrong, good or bad, the gulf between PHP developer and C
> developer is *huge*, and doing anything at all with the PHP engine,
We're not talking here writing code in C. We're talking here typing
"configure" in shell, hitting enter, then typing "make" in shell, then
hitting
hi,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:42:51 +0100):
>>On Jan 30, 2013 1:30 AM, "Jan Ehrhardt" wrote:
>>>
>>http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/results-20130125-5.5.0alpha4-5.5rd86e14b.html
>>>
>>> I am a lit
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:42:51 +0100):
>On Jan 30, 2013 1:30 AM, "Jan Ehrhardt" wrote:
>>
>http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/results-20130125-5.5.0alpha4-5.5rd86e14b.html
>>
>> I am a little surprised you are still using Apache 2.2 as test
>> environmen
On Jan 30, 2013 1:30 AM, "Jan Ehrhardt" wrote:
>
> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:23:59 +0100):
> >Zero skills are required to setup a PHP. But a bit more clue is
> >required to test Drupal. I can help the PHP setup automation but would
> >need your help to setup D7+ setup with
On 01/29/2013 08:45 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 03:12 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>>> If I could run my own VM (that much I can do) and periodically just do
>>> apt-get update php-head, that would lower the barrier to testing new
>>> versions by several orders of magnitude. (Yeah ye
Larry Garfield in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:45:17 -0600):
>On 01/29/2013 03:12 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>> Is building from git really that much harder? Yes, it takes a little bit
>> of tweaking to get your configure flags right and getting all the right
>> dev versions of the dependen
On 01/29/2013 03:12 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
If I could run my own VM (that much I can do) and periodically just do
apt-get update php-head, that would lower the barrier to testing new
versions by several orders of magnitude. (Yeah yeah insert RPM vs. Apt
debate here; both are good to have.)
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:23:59 +0100):
>Zero skills are required to setup a PHP. But a bit more clue is
>required to test Drupal. I can help the PHP setup automation but would
>need your help to setup D7+ setup with major plugins to automate the
>tests. By the way, we alrea
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Ralf Lang wrote:
> The one thing apt-get/zypper saves is time. You eliminate the commit
> states which won't build at all, at least for the end users. Now they
> have more time to figure how they make their legacy code work with the
> newest git PHP and why their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2013 02:49 PM, Ralf Lang wrote:
> The one thing apt-get/zypper saves is time. You eliminate the
> commit states which won't build at all, at least for the end users.
> Now they have more time to figure how they make their legacy code
> work wi
/2013 22:31
To: Larry Garfield
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
On 01/29/2013 01:12 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> I realize this is slightly more complicated than an apt-get, but
> pre-building packages that will work with all the combinations of
> libraries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Is building from git really that much harder? Yes, it takes a
> little bit of tweaking to get your configure flags right and
> getting all the right dev versions of the dependencies installed,
> but at least on Debian/Ubuntu (since you mentioned apt)
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27 +0100):
>Question: Did you test D7/8 and their respective plugins with php 5.5?
OK. A part of that challenge I took: compile PHP 5.5 Alpha 4 ZTS for
Windows with as many extensions as I could. The result:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8954372/php-
On 01/29/2013 01:12 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> I realize this is slightly more complicated than an apt-get, but
> pre-building packages that will work with all the combinations of
> libraries and things out there is a PITA. By building your own you get
> to choose everything by editing your cn scr
On 01/29/2013 12:43 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 1/29/13 11:46 AM, Ralf Lang wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Am 29.01.2013 18:38, schrieb Pierre Joye:
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Attila Bukor
>>> wrote:
I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other p
On 1/29/13 11:46 AM, Ralf Lang wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 29.01.2013 18:38, schrieb Pierre Joye:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Attila Bukor
wrote:
I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects use nightly
builds successfully. I don't think a vbox image
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Ralf Lang wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am 29.01.2013 18:38, schrieb Pierre Joye:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Attila Bukor
> > wrote:
> >> I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects use nightly
> >> builds succes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 29.01.2013 18:38, schrieb Pierre Joye:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Attila Bukor
> wrote:
>> I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects use nightly
>> builds successfully. I don't think a vbox image would be
>> necessary as no-one
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Attila Bukor wrote:
> I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects use nightly builds
> successfully. I don't think a vbox image would be necessary as no-one
> would use nightly builds on a production environment,
It is not about using anything in prod bu
I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects use nightly builds
successfully. I don't think a vbox image would be necessary as no-one
would use nightly builds on a production environment, but if web developers
who feel a little adventurous could add an official PHP nightly-build
repository
hi Larry,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 1/29/13 5:08 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> hi Jan,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Pierre,
>>>
>>> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27 +0100):
This is one of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 29.01.2013 17:55, schrieb Larry Garfield:
> On 1/29/13 5:08 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> hi Jan,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jan Ehrhardt
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Pierre,
>>>
>>> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27
>>> +0100)
On 1/29/13 5:08 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi Jan,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27 +0100):
This is one of the reason why the 'new' release process RFC does not
allow BC breaks. But we can't be 100% sure that
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:08:16 +0100):
>What do you need to get D7 tested under 5.5? I mean once you have a CI
>in place, it is not hard to setup one instance to test 5.5.
I do not need anything, except for 48 hours in a day and some disk space
on my Win7 laptop ;-)
>Wait
hi Jan,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27 +0100):
>>This is one of the reason why the 'new' release process RFC does not
>>allow BC breaks. But we can't be 100% sure that we do not introduce
>>one without
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27 +0100):
>This is one of the reason why the 'new' release process RFC does not
>allow BC breaks. But we can't be 100% sure that we do not introduce
>one without you, all projects and users, doing intensive testing using
>your apps,
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
