Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> A good deal of time has passed and it seems Derick and Pierre are no
> closer to the consensus about the filter extension and in the meantime
> 5.2 release process is stalling.
It would be nice if it could be decided who is in charge of this
extension. Since Rasmus and
Hello,
On 9/29/06, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> A good deal of time has passed and it seems Derick and Pierre are no closer to
> the consensus about the filter extension and in the meantime 5.2 release
> process is stalling. At this po
On 29/09/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A good deal of time has passed and it seems Derick and Pierre are no
closer to the consensus about the filter extension and in the
meantime 5.2 release process is stalling. At this point I think as
the Release Manager I need make a decision
Hello Sebastian,
On 9/29/06, Sebastian Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> A good deal of time has passed and it seems Derick and Pierre are no
> closer to the consensus about the filter extension and in the meantime
> 5.2 release process is stalling.
It would be nice
On 29.09.2006 03:52, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
A good deal of time has passed and it seems Derick and Pierre are no
closer to the consensus about the filter extension and in the
meantime 5.2 release process is stalling. At this point I think as
the Release Manager I need make a decision on how
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> It would be nice if it could be decided who is in charge of this
> extension. Since Rasmus and Derick did all the initial work on the
> extension I think it should be them, and not Pierre.
I agree that we need someone in charge. But I also think that the
initial work
Hi Chirstian,
On 9/29/06, Christian Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> It would be nice if it could be decided who is in charge of this
> extension. Since Rasmus and Derick did all the initial work on the
> extension I think it should be them, and not Pierre.
I
Pierre wrote:
> This patch is more than only changing the API to fit to our decisions.
I know. That's why Derick's patch would have to be on par to be competitive.
> The (bad) joke is to be here talking again about something we agreed
> on two weeks ago.
While I agree with you the problem is th
Hello,
On 9/29/06, Christian Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pierre wrote:
> This patch is more than only changing the API to fit to our decisions.
I know. That's why Derick's patch would have to be on par to be competitive.
There is no competition, fight or any other stupid things like
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:14:54 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schneider) wrote:
> While I agree with you the problem is that it's as of now unclear
> who's in the driver seat of the filter extension: You or Derick.
Forgot to answer to this specific part.
Let me say it again: The leads of this
Pierre wrote:
> There is no competition, fight or any other stupid things like that.
Competition is not stupid and if two people provide a solution the
better should get accepted. If we only have one solution at hand then
it's certainly obvious which one should be chosen.
> No, we need a way to t
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:38:12 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schneider) wrote:
> Pierre wrote:
> > There is no competition, fight or any other stupid things like that.
>
> Competition is not stupid and if two people provide a solution the
> better should get accepted. If we only have one solut
On 29-Sep-06, at 5:06 AM, Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 29.09.2006 03:52, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
A good deal of time has passed and it seems Derick and Pierre are
no closer to the consensus about the filter extension and in the
meantime 5.2 release process is stalling. At this point I think
On 29.09.2006 17:37, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On 29-Sep-06, at 5:06 AM, Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 29.09.2006 03:52, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
A good deal of time has passed and it seems Derick and Pierre are
no closer to the consensus about the filter extension and in the
meantime 5.2 release
Hello Everyone,
I have a small problem with the mssql extension and resources (Tested with
PHP 5.2).
If I use the same variable to store the resource for a result the second
result is not always correct!
// Example 1 does not work
$rs = mssql_query("select 1");
$rs = mssql_query("select 3 select
>> No comments?
>
> I'm definitely +1 on the per-host configure option, if it's stable
> enough to satisfy QA team.
>
> Making migration to unicode apps easier is definitely a big win for
> adoption.
>
Nooone is arguing that from the userspace side, having per-dir support for
setting the unicode f
> For several reasons I need to call a php script every x minutes.
> I need that on several platforms so I started to write a pecl
> extension that implements something like a cron service.
>
Why not cron then?
> Obviously I miss something in initing php, because php
> crashes in main/streams/stre
Nooone is arguing that from the userspace side, having per-dir support for
setting the unicode flag is a good thing. It is. The question is: Is it
good enough to justify the soup that will become of the internal registries?
I'm not sure there really would be a soup. Yes, there would be two
18 matches
Mail list logo
