Christopher Jones wrote:
Hi Simon,
Welcome!
I've merged these for you. I added an exit() block to the test. See
the "Last bit" section in http://qa.php.net/write-test.php
Let us know if you have any questions or if there's anyway we can help
you. What parts of PHP are you looking at now?
I know I will be directed to the 'windows' list, but I think it is
important that PHP is still available cross platform ... I run both
Linux and Windows and both should run the same?
Since many of my target systems are still Windows based, primary testing
of new stuff is done on that, but curr
On a related note, I've been working on a phpt to verify the behaviour
during which I've noticed a lack of test cases for networked functions
in general.
The solution I have in mind depends on pcntl_fork(), which practically
takes out Windows test targets. It essentially forks out a child to
perfo
Lester Caine wrote:
I know I will be directed to the 'windows' list, but I think it is
important that PHP is still available cross platform ... I run both
Linux and Windows and both should run the same?
Since many of my target systems are still Windows based, primary testing
of new stuff is d
Lester Caine wrote:
> Lester Caine wrote:
>> I know I will be directed to the 'windows' list, but I think it is
>> important that PHP is still available cross platform ... I run both
>> Linux and Windows and both should run the same?
>>
>> Since many of my target systems are still Windows based, pr
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> The fact is that we have only a handful of people who do any sort of
> Windows work while we have hundreds of volunteers for other parts of the
> project. Unless we get more volunteers interesting in working on
> Windows-related stuff, yo
Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> The fact is that we have only a handful of people who do any sort of
>> Windows work while we have hundreds of volunteers for other parts of the
>> project. Unless we get more volunteers interesting in working on
>
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Pierre Joye wrote:
>> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>>> The fact is that we have only a handful of people who do any sort of
>>> Windows work while we have hundreds of volunteers for other parts of the
>>> proj
( return address !!! There is only a couple of sites now that I
have this problem )
Pierre Joye wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Pierre Joye wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
The fact is that we have only a handful of people
I commited your change as it fixes a bug, thanks for the patch :)
I also followed your idea of a server to test http streams (ftp
extension does this, too) and wrote a test for this bug. Other http
tests are welcome if you want to write some.
Regards,
Arnaud
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 16:42 +0800,
Last 7 commits or so, none went to PHP_5_2. Intentionally?
We usually fix bugs in the branch they're reported for also..
--Jani
Arnaud Le Blanc kirjoitti:
I commited your change as it fixes a bug, thanks for the patch :)
I also followed your idea of a server to test http streams (ftp
extensi
Yes, the fix requires "ignore_errors", which is new in 5.3. The bug
can't be fixed in 5.2 without breaking compatibility.
Regards,
Arnaud
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 02:02 +0300, Jani Taskinen wrote:
> Last 7 commits or so, none went to PHP_5_2. Intentionally?
> We usually fix bugs in the branch they'
But ignore_errors is not used in 5.2 right? ;-) I also have a patch
for that actually if you're interested =D
On 5/17/09, Arnaud Le Blanc wrote:
> Yes, the fix requires "ignore_errors", which is new in 5.3. The bug
> can't be fixed in 5.2 without breaking compatibility.
>
> Regards,
>
> Arnaud
>
Since I'll be out most of today, I'll just post the patch first; it'd
be great if it could also be applied to the 5_2 branch of course, but
that's not my call ;-)
As for compatibility, by default the patch would not change anything
to the current 5.2 behaviour, so I'm not sure how this poses a
pro
... I don't know why I never scrolled down to the changelog section of
the documentation where it mentions that this was introduced in 5.3.0
onwards (ahem); still, since the introduction of this parameter was
only inside this wrapper it could still be backported to 5.2.10 right?
;-)
On 5/17/09, Tj
15 matches
Mail list logo
