Re: [PHP-DEV] Fw: unpack()

On Feb 25, 2016 2:08 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" wrote: > > > > > > From: Dmitry Stogov > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 13:35 > To: Hynek Bartoš; php-...@lists.php.net; php-general-h...@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: unpack() > > > Hi, > > > I think

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PRNG: Raise warning and/or provide better pseudo random generator?

and reduce them within the maximum range. I joined the other person proposing not to change anything else in our MT implementation as there is little to no benefit. If we need pure implementation of one pseudo RNG or another, we can provide new implementations. But changing again this one may bring more troubles than what we are trying to solve. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] Generalize support of negative string offsets

minder is nice, a correct and visible vote start announce is a must. Please do it accordingly and the voting period will start when the mail announce is sent to the list :) Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Generalize support of negative string offsets

On Feb 15, 2016 1:15 PM, "Yasuo Ohgaki" wrote: > > Hi all, > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Stanislav Malyshev > wrote: > >> Another issue mentioned in this thread is the spurious array conversion > >> that happens for empty strings. We have an

Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Contributor Guidelines, and Updates to Code of Conduct progress

idea into a better one. Only resort towards > arguing against the RFC if you think it's a bad idea and you can think of no > ways to improve it. When disagreeing..." With the hope that "propose them to the RFC author to try and evolve the idea into a better one", e

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal for a new array function

rray) I have no strong opinion on it but I wonder if it should have a recursive version as well, if accepted. I see it a bit like array_walk. Cheers, Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] Allow specifying keys in list()

guments support would be by far superior than that, for the record here :) Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Add PHP_ENGINE Constant

). I am not very keen about that either as I prefer to use separate files. However it seems to be where we could move forward for these kind of needs? parser/compilation time constants or expression (like HAVE_FOO in C for example but only defined by the respective engine and maybe extensions) as well as at runtime (as normal PHP constants). Just a thought :) Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Add PHP_ENGINE Constant

On Feb 6, 2016 3:02 AM, "Sara Golemon" <poll...@php.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I do however like the idea of feature detection - I wonder if perhaps we > >> could do something

Re: [PHP-DEV] Bumping minimal OpenSSL version to 1.0.1 in master for PHP 7.1

ts.php.net/msg80502.html some > time ago and I think that now is the right time to do that (before looking > to OpenSSL 1.1 compatibility). > > Are there any objections? I am all for it. Thanks for your work! Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] Severe safety fail in file access and stream filters

On Jan 26, 2016 5:50 PM, "Julien Pauli" wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > > Hi Umberto, > > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Umberto Salsi wrote: > >> thank you very much for the reply, I now start

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.0.3 RC1 is available for testing - **** BC break ***

ng the broken test should be just removing the php_session_abort() from > php_session_cache_limiter(). Fixing broken tests most likely mean BC will remain which is not so good. I understand the overall goal to improve session security but this is an area that has behaved this way for years. I am totally convinced that such big changes should have (or should) in stable branches, be 7.0 or 5.6. Especially because testing these changes take time. Cheers, Pierre

[PHP-DEV] alternative valgrind-like support for run-tests along other nice additions

(extension or core) can finally have something like valgrind. Thoughts, ideas and comments welcome. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code of Conduct

I think instead of trying to make the RFC looks like what camp or the other wants for this specific section, we should propose the two and put options in the vote. That means I also do not agree to do it in another later RFC. These are fundamental parts of the RFC that should be agreed (or not) on fro

Re: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code of Conduct

Hello, On Jan 24, 2016 9:31 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! . > > > day. To state an obvious question - what precisely is the status quo > > in comparison to a COC? Ad-hoc bans by whoever has access to the ML? > > Yes, status quo is pretty much that. IIRC we needed

RE: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code of Conduct

f.e.) apologize from the author of this PR and that's it. I also think think it is wrong to try to use legal wording or comparisons as it is not a public environment governed by laws (well, laws applied but not in our scopes). It is about rules we define and we wish to follow in our community. Just like what we can see in many other group of people, in tech, sports or other. Cheers, Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Re-proposed] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 21, 2016 2:38 AM, "Paul M. Jones" wrote: > > > > On Jan 20, 2016, at 13:04, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I've decided to re-propose the CoC RFC. > > Is it a violation of the RFC rules to skip step 1 ("Email internals@lists.php.net

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Allow specifying keys in list()

arguments, it sounds like a hack to solve another long due feature. Anyway, as it is not part of this RFC, I will ignore it for now :) Keep the good work, Cheers, Pierre On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > Hi Bishop, > > > Bishop Bettini wrote: >>

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines -- "let's proceed to ideas"

;smalys...@gmail.com I think we get every one point about where we stand, between the people against a CoC, against a CoC with teeth etc. This is getting nowhere and we are really off topic. I would suggest to stop talking in circle for now and wait the next version of the RFC. Then we can focus on the content of the CoC, let me rephrase that, then we can focus only on the content of the CoC and the eventual "CoC group" and its role. Please. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] PHP 5's Support Timeline

On Jan 13, 2016 10:42 PM, "Joe Watkins" wrote: > > > The way the RFC the choices are going to be interpreted was presented > ahead of time, was available throughout the entire discussion period, and > very clearly so: > > So what !? > > The terms are clearly biased towards

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Internals and Newcomers and the Sidelines (WAS: Adopt Code of Conduct)

d join? Or are we telling them to stay away and just eat? I hope this image comes over correctly. :) Cheers, Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.1 - Argon2

On Jan 12, 2016 6:28 AM, "Scott Arciszewski" wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Solar Designer wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:04:36AM -0500, Anthony Ferrara wrote: > > > To my understanding, the crypt scheme hasn't been formalized.

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.1 - Argon2

Hi, On Jan 11, 2016 4:12 PM, "Rouven Weßling" wrote: > > > > On 11 Jan 2016, at 07:57, Scott Arciszewski wrote: > > > > Does adding Argon2 as a possible choice for password_hash() + > > password_verify() need an RFC? Or can I just submit a pull

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 11, 2016 8:47 PM, "Brandon Savage" wrote: > > > > > At the same time, though, if someone is being maliciously hostile what > > great cover! A private email is not a PHP-Group managed resource, so no > > rules! Twitter, ha, no rules! Reddit? LOL like they

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Libsodium

On Jan 11, 2016 5:22 AM, "Scott Arciszewski" wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Rowan Collins wrote: > > On 10/01/2016 21:41, Scott Arciszewski wrote: > >> > >> Hi Rowan, > >> > >>> >I think what people are suggesting is not that libsodium

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive > > You are wrong. At best, it is

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 9, 2016 10:43 PM, "Pierre Joye" <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 10, 2016 10:19 AM, "David Zuelke" wrote: > > +1 to all the points below; pretty much my concerns and thoughts exactly. I am bit confused by your last replies. On one side you said you don't feel comfortable and on the other you agree to say that it is not a toxic

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Anonymous voting on wiki

s fine. If not, it makes the whole thing useless. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Bishop Bettini <bis...@php.net> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > On Jan 9, 2016, at 09:43, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 9, 2016 2:03 AM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > > For those still in doubts, ask users why they don't post to the list. > > Why they don't contribute. Our reputation of agressivity (and I take the > > blame on that too) did not do us any good and still do not.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 9, 2016 1:25 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > > This is exactly what slightly annoys me to be honest. It exactly why > > we need a private group to deal with such events, even rare, or even > > if they will never ever happen again. > > > > Despite numerous

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 9, 2016 2:27 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > > One problem we discuss this using two different ends. I mainly focus on > > providing tools to ensure we have a safe context. While you seem to > > ensure that we do not mistakes, do not ban innocent or apply

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 9, 2016 2:39 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > > What I said is that these are two different points and should be > > discussed separately. Yes, it will be part of the RFc but talking many > > points at the same time is impossible. > > No, I don't think it's

Re: [PHP-DEV] Anonymous voting on wiki

On Jan 9, 2016 2:55 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > Since in CoC discussion it was mentioned we may need anonymous voting, > I've created a patch that allows anonymous polls to be created: > > https://github.com/php/web-wiki/pull/7 > > The results still recorded

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

onal. One may sees it as censorship, I see as a learning curve, together. And only as an attempt to be more clear about my thoughts (sorry, dictionary again :): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggressivity and 1. applies to what I define as bad. While 2. and 3. are totally fine and can be

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

Why they don't contribute. Our reputation of agressivity (and I take the blame on that too) did not do us any good and still do not. Thanks, Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:17, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If someone starts to put bad pressure on another person (harassment, >> insults, personal attacks,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 8, 2016 5:51 AM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Anthony Ferrara > wrote: > > > Zeev, > > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > >> -Original Message- > > >> From: Anthony Ferrara

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 8, 2016 3:34 AM, "Chase Peeler" <chasepee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Jan 8, 2016 3:14 AM, "Chase Peeler" <chasepee...@gmail.com> wrote

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 8, 2016 3:12 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:51, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It is not. To me to distinguish harassment vs hot discussions (public or private) is part of c

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 8, 2016 3:39 AM, "Chase Peeler" <chasepee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Jan 8, 2016 3:34 AM, "Chase Peeler" <chasepee...@gmail.com> wr

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Libsodium

e hash functions to > ext/hash. This is definitely the way. Thanks for your great work :) Cheers, Pierre -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Libsodium

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Scott Arciszewski <sc...@paragonie.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: >> HI Scott, >> >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Scott Arciszewski <sc...@paragonie.com> >>

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 8, 2016 2:58 AM, "Chase Peeler" <chasepee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 8, 2016 2:44 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 8, 2016 3:14 AM, "Chase Peeler" wrote: > > And none of those caveats exist in the definition you provided. Hmmm. Which one did you read? "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 7, 2016, at 10:47, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Are you saying that a person has his place in php.net after being proven >> gulty of harassment or

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 8, 2016 1:58 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:14, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 8, 2016 2:21 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:15, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jan 8, 2016 1:58 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 8, 2016 2:27 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:25, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2016 2:21 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrot

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

ve more issues (or less) but because we are in a position now to actually setup such CoC in a good way. And we are also the leading web programming language. We must ensure that we act accordingly. I also trust us to have the structure to manage such situations in a fair manner. Cheers, Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 6, 2016 7:53 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 5, 2016, at 18:19, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 6, 2016 1:03 AM, "Ferenc Kovacs" <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Jan 6, 2016 1:03 AM, "Ferenc Kovacs" wrote: > > Who would like to be connected with the Drupal people in this space, if I > > can get their time? I figure Anthony and Stas are good to include there > > (proposer and someone with well-reasoned concerned). One or two more

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

t creates, confirms or ensure that the context of the php.net remains a safe for anyone to contribute. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Testing HTTP/2 support in PHP

Hi Andrea, On Jan 5, 2016 12:16 AM, "Andrea Faulds" wrote: > > Hi Davey, > > > Davey Shafik wrote: >> >> However, Rasmus raised the possibility of adding HTTP/2 support to the >> cli-server [2], and (someone? @php-pulls) suggested we pull in a third >> party lib to do the heavy

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

nstructive arguments into the game instead? I got what you consider as a limitation of free speech. I think many already explained why it is not about free speech but protection and about confirm and ensure a safe context, given you understand what "safe" means here. Hopefully. Cheers, --

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

d thoughts. My comment was mainly about the usefulness of a CoC. -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

or otherwise. I agree it is not perfect and needs work and deeper thought. There are proven to work well CoC out there, we can get inspiration from them. That being said, saying that this RFC is a facist censorship is wrong in so many ways. > My contempt for this terrible, horrible, very bad,

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 21:22, Bishop Bettini <bis...@php.net> wrote: >>> >>> Every long

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC proposal for alternative list syntax

> [$a, $b] = [1, 2]; > > list() and array() are two different language constructs, using the same > syntax for them is a bad idea. I tend to agree here but it exists elsewhere and is quite handy. Also the behavior of this expression, in this case, is obvious. Cheers, -- Pierre @pie

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP7 Zend Heap validation

On Dec 26, 2015 12:30 PM, "Xinchen Hui" wrote: > > Hey: > > On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 1:01 PM, wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I am working on porting a pre-PHP7 database driver extension to PHP7 for > > Windows platforms. > > ( I am using PHP

Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: PHP 5.6 Support Timeline

support to 2 years (ending on 28 Aug 2018) I had to go with make the dates match with no change, eventually adding one year for security support as I consider extending the active support at this stage as a mistake and bad usage of our limited resources. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://w

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle

this is what we do right now already. For them, everything is too short, but for reasons outside php.net's control. This is why many of us wanted 5.7, to provide an easier transition post 5.6 for those not able to move to 7 in the next two years. Now it is proposed to still do it with 5.6 starting

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.6 life cycle

On Dec 6, 2015 11:32 PM, "Ferenc Kovacs" wrote: > > 2015. dec. 6. 13:15 ezt írta ("Jan Ehrhardt" ): > > > > See http://php.net/supported-versions.php > > > > Will PHP 5.6 go into 'security fixes only' on 28 Aug 2015 with a end of > > life on 28 Aug 2016? Or

Re: [PHP-DEV] PCS (PHP Code Service)

ituations, will make it harder to maintain and may be the next phar. Also many of these features could live well in an external extensions keeping the core part simple. Cheers, Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] 7.1 release date ?

On Dec 5, 2015 8:09 PM, "François Laupretre" wrote: > > Hi, > > It may seem an obvious or odd question but do we have an estimated timeline (or just a rough estimate of a release date) for 7.1, or will it be decided later, depending on proposed RFCs ? > > I am currently working

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.0.0 final RTM delay

On Dec 4, 2015 5:28 PM, "Sebastian Bergmann" wrote: > > Am 04.12.2015 um 00:09 schrieb Stanislav Malyshev: > > Windows as a platform is different from Linux/Mac in several aspects > > True. But why does the PHP Project have to provide Windows binaries on > php.net? Microsoft

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP7 PECL Extensions

On Dec 4, 2015 8:25 PM, "Jan Ehrhardt" wrote: > > Martin Keckeis in php.internals (Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:01:20 +0100): > >it seems there are already some extensions build successfully for > >php7windows > > > >in my case i miss currently two extensions: > >-

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.0.0 final RTM delay

want to kick out windows binaries of php.net? Go ahead with a rfc. If you have nothing constructive to do and so much spare time to do something as destructive and poisoning as that, even if the rfc fails. On the other hand, I would suggest you in the most friendly way to consider to contribute to the core in other ways. Cheers, Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.0.0 final RTM delay

On Dec 3, 2015 6:51 PM, "François Laupretre" <franc...@php.net> wrote: > > Le 03/12/2015 12:28, Pierre Joye a écrit : >> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Sebastian Bergmann <sebast...@php.net> wrote: >>> >>> Am 03.12.2015 um 12:10 schr

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.0.0 final RTM delay

focus mainly on "windows blah, windows there" part of this thing. And that windows is and always been part of the release process is nothing new. Yes, 7 is big, but that should not affect the quality of our releases, the sources and the ability to use these sources with the librari

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.0.0 final RTM delay

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Sebastian Bergmann <sebast...@php.net> wrote: > Am 03.12.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Pierre Joye: >> In my world, we build softwares from sources, then we may found >> issues. We patch the sources to fix them and make everything work >> toge

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.0.0 final RTM delay

i is to avoid to have to do a fast patch release to work around an issue we could have seen by validating the binaries.Simple. -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.0.0 final RTM delay

On Dec 3, 2015 1:58 PM, "Remi Collet" wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Le 03/12/2015 06:51, Sebastian Bergmann a écrit : > > Am 02.12.2015 um 09:42 schrieb Anatol Belski: > >>> Do the Windows builds have to be available immediately when > >>>

Re: [PHP-DEV] Remove get_browser() from core

; > > > +1. Would be nice if we could point to a recommended alternative in the deprecation message. +1 too. Hard to do it in the error message but there are plenty of tools doing a far better jobs using log analysis (for the stats). Cheers, Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.0.0 final RTM delay

On Dec 3, 2015 10:27 PM, "Ferenc Kovacs" wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Sebastian Bergmann > wrote: > > > Am 03.12.2015 um 16:10 schrieb Julien Pauli: > > > We, PHP, are not distros maintainers. > > > > Well said. But why, then, do we provide

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 7.0.0 final RTM delay

On Dec 3, 2015 10:18 PM, "Sebastian Bergmann" wrote: > > Am 03.12.2015 um 16:10 schrieb Julien Pauli: > > We, PHP, are not distros maintainers. > > Well said. But why, then, do we provide Windows binaries? I am sure I can find many mails, private or public, where you, as one

Re: [PHP-DEV] HashDos protection

On Dec 1, 2015 4:50 PM, "Dmitry Stogov" wrote: > > I think only big arrays coming from external sources should be checked. I tend to agree here. We discussed it with Remote last week. I was trying to explain why having a crafted hash function for inputs may be better and

Re: [PHP-DEV] Proof of Concept : 3.5x and more Performance Boost for php7 using 4 cores

andidate to be delegated outside the request handling, preferably on another box. Also an extension fits the main usage for such features, in CLI. -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Fwd: Proper VARIANT to use for System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider?

On Oct 20, 2015 5:44 PM, "Pierre Joye" <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Oct 19, 2015 9:52 PM, "Scott Arciszewski" <sc...@paragonie.com> wrote: > > > > Okay, I've tried both wind...@lists.php.net and > > php.wind...@lists.ph

Re: [PHP-DEV] Fwd: Proper VARIANT to use for System.Security.Cryptography.RNGCryptoServiceProvider?

Hi, On Oct 19, 2015 9:52 PM, "Scott Arciszewski" wrote: > > Okay, I've tried both wind...@lists.php.net and > php.wind...@lists.php.net and I give up trying there. > > -- > > Since CAPICOM is deprecated, for users without ext/mcrypt or > ext/openssl, I'd like

Re: [PHP-DEV] Port random_bytes to PHP 5

e openssl rng functions and compat. Cheers, Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] Rogue Wave Software acquires enterprise PHP leader Zend

point clear for me, if they do and come with anything but the PHP license, I can already say that I won't accept it. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Windows OpCache bug fix

On Oct 1, 2015 3:59 AM, "Dmitry Stogov" wrote: > > Hi Matt, > > Thanks for looking into the problem, but I afraid that the proposed > solution won't solve the problem completely, but may introduce new > problems. At first, we might to reserve N times more memory. Then different >

Re: [PHP-DEV] async/await - is future reserved words in PHP 7.x?

On Sep 28, 2015 11:53 PM, "Levi Morrison" wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Thomas Hruska wrote: > > On 9/28/2015 1:29 AM, S.A.N wrote: > >> > >> Are there any future plans for - async/await? > >> This need to know now, not to use these words to

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

On Sep 24, 2015 2:11 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" wrote: > > Hi! > > > As a PHP developer, I agree with the possible confusion between `->` and > > `~>`. > > `==>` is a better choice IMHO, for its similarity with Hacklang syntax, as > > said previously. > > I'm getting a feeling

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Short Closures

FC would otherwise be proposing a strict subset. > > So, I am voting against. Same reason here. Thanks, Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] ABI break? (was: [PHP-CVS] com php-src: Don't inline "slow" and rarely used functions.: Zend/zend_alloc.c Zend/zend_alloc.h)

On Sep 16, 2015 8:08 AM, "Adam Harvey" wrote: > > On 9 September 2015 at 03:42, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > > Commit:ac83eaef1097552065395872c69b77dcab2919b1 > > Author:Dmitry Stogov Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:42:35 +0300 > > Parents:

Re: [PHP-DEV] strict-api - Proposing a tool to check and enforce encapsulation

On Sep 13, 2015 7:46 PM, "François Laupretre" wrote: > > Le 13/09/2015 04:14, Sean DuBois a écrit : >> >> That sounds good to me! >> >> That would double build times though, is that going to be a concern? >> This won't hurt development time though, since you would dev in

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP7 PECL Extensions

On Sep 10, 2015 10:32 PM, "Sean DuBois" wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:25:16PM +0100, Joe Watkins wrote: > > Afternoon internals, > > > > Is there any concrete plan for deploying pecl extensions for PHP7 ? > > > > Anatol (or anyone), is there any way to get windows

Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP7 PECL Extensions

On Sep 11, 2015 12:14 AM, "Pierre Joye" <pierre@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 10, 2015 10:32 PM, "Sean DuBois" <s...@siobud.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:25:16PM +0100, Joe Watkins wrote: > > > Afternoon internals,

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Add HTTP/2 Multiplexing-related constants to ext/curl

On Sep 3, 2015 2:48 PM, "Jan Ehrhardt" wrote: > > Davey Shafik in php.internals (Wed, 2 Sep 2015 17:31:44 +1200): > >I'd love to see this make it into PHP 7.0 if it's not too late? It's > >extremely trivial, but whatever — not that fussed :) > > > >PR is here:

Re: [PHP-DEV] Add HTTP/2 Multiplexing-related constants to ext/curl

Hi, On Sep 2, 2015 12:31 PM, "Davey Shafik" wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been poking around at HTTP/2 a lot lately, and it seems that so long > as you are using libcurl 7.43.0+ it's possible to do request multiplexing. > > This change simply introduces three constants, CURLPIPE_NOTHING

Re: [PHP-DEV] Overflow checks and integral vars comparison

On Aug 25, 2015 7:19 PM, Matt Wilmas php_li...@realplain.com wrote: I didn't reply in last week's thread about the overflow checks in OpenSSL... But it is *definitely* fine to be optimistic and rely on compiler to do basic, basic stuff like this. No reason to make things more complicated

Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discuss] Random Functions Throwing Exceptions in PHP 7.0.0

On Aug 24, 2015 9:38 AM, Scott Arciszewski sc...@paragonie.com wrote: There is no /dev/urandom on the Windows operating system, so that system is not universal. For tge record, all version of crypto safe RNG (at least mcrypt and openssl) use the windows crypto API since some time already. I

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: com php-src: Remove assumption that extensions are in ext/ext-name Fixesalso a weird ln (symlink) hack for phpdbg: acinclude.m4 build/config-stubsbuild/genif.sh build/order_by_dep.aw

, please ask for help on IRC or the list. That makes me think about what we discussed a while back. At least for stable/RC, do force to use PR and tracis check before commit. I also like gerrit, but may be a too slow process for us. Cheers, Pierre

Re: [PHP-DEV] Recap - Core functions throwing exceptions in PHP7

decided by RFC, hence the oppositions. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Recap - Core functions throwing exceptions in PHP7

On Aug 22, 2015 9:33 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote: If that's what it will take I will happily draft one tomorrow morning. But if the RMs are against it, I will respect that as well. Hence the dilemma

Re: [PHP-DEV] Recap - Core functions throwing exceptions in PHP7

Arciszewski sc...@paragonie.com Cc: Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com; Trevor Suarez ric...@gmail.com; Niklas Keller m...@kelunik.com; PHP Internals internals@lists.php.net Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Recap - Core functions throwing exceptions in PHP7 On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Scott

Re: [PHP-DEV] Recap - Core functions throwing exceptions in PHP7

On Aug 22, 2015 7:39 AM, Christoph Becker cmbecke...@gmx.de wrote: On 21.08.2015 at 12:14, Scott Arciszewski wrote: 2. One of the folks in the camp that WANTS an RFC and a drawn out formal decision-making process opens it with a poll. AIUI, that is not how it is supposed to work. Those

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >