Hello,
sorry if I'm totally wrong - I have no experience in this area, but if
someone is strongly against removing those files for any reason (not
that I would) then we might consider passing -i flag while generating C
files with re2c.
As far as I can see most of the changes listed on every
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> Hi internals!
>
> The vote for removal of alternative PHP opening/closing tags in PHP 7 is
> now open:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/remove_alternative_php_tags#vote
>
> Nikita
>
The RFC has been accepted with 26 votes in favor and 8 agai
On 25/09/2014 09:42, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
The vote is opened at
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/fix_list_behavior_inconsistency
Thanks. Dmitry.
Hi,
After discussing this RFC with a few other members of AFUP (French UG),
we agree *something* should be done, to get to a consistent behavior:
ei
Hi,
Ferenc nailed why this RFC could be considered invalid. Maintenance burden
and separate releases would be bad if tied to php-src. I'll update its
status to declined.
Joe, as I said in the RFC, Mutex could only be supported through pthreads
PECL.
So your answer was still not 100% accurate from
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> In released 5.4.33 (and 5.5.17) you have 6569db8 + 84a4041 + 32be79d
>> (notice I have revert these 3 patches for downstream)
>>
>> In 5.4/5.5/5.6 you have 6569db8 + 84a4041 + 32be79d + f86b219 + 3728449
>> (all reverted in 5.6.1)
>
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 14:26 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>> .
>> personally I think that a pecl extension needs to have stronger arguments
>> to be bundled with php-src than the fact that it would probably create a
>> bit more exposure for
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 14:26 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> .
> personally I think that a pecl extension needs to have stronger arguments
> to be bundled with php-src than the fact that it would probably create a
> bit more exposure for the ext.
>
Fully agree and mind this:
For an average user it
On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 14:26 +0200, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:18 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
> guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What does that even mean?
> >
> > It means that any new functionality that gets into core could be considered
> > "young". Like when P
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:18 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com <
guilhermebla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What does that even mean?
>
> It means that any new functionality that gets into core could be considered
> "young". Like when PHAR got introduced, it was a "young" extension. Same
> for PDO, same f
