On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Joe Orton wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 08:58:47AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I think many people rely heavily on the packages maintained by the
various Linux distributions. A binary compatibility break is a burden
on the maintainers of these packages, but beyond
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I'm tired going through the reasons again and again, and frankly it's not the
end of the world if we go with 4.4. I just thought that it's not justified
(there are downsides to it even if you guys fail to admit that), but since
everyone appears to
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 08:58:47AM -0700, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I think many people rely heavily on the packages maintained by the
various Linux distributions. A binary compatibility break is a burden
on the maintainers of these packages, but beyond needing to update every
PHP package, the
Hi All,
I am not getting exactly what is the issue in refcount with reference
variable. One liner will be great for me to understand.
Anyway php-5 is not free of such refcount issues. One example is given
below. This code is a reduced form of xoops content Management
application's one activity
Hi George,
I see two things:
a) Many companies large and small have migrated or are in the process of
migrating to PHP 5 mainly for the improved XML and Web Services support. As
such migration requires a whole QA cycle, this is often done in sync with
an already planned product release. Most
Hi Dmitry,
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
This patch breaks binary compatibility.
It cannot be broken in 4.3.x tree, and that doesn't make sense to release
4.4 just for this patch.
You mean that they think that it doesn't make sense to fix PHP in cases
where it's totally broken?
Derick Rethans wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
This patch breaks binary compatibility.
It cannot be broken in 4.3.x tree, and that doesn't make sense to release
4.4 just for this patch.
You mean that they think that it doesn't make sense to fix PHP in cases
At 12:00 30/05/2005, Lukas Smith wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
This patch breaks binary compatibility.
It cannot be broken in 4.3.x tree, and that doesn't make sense to release
4.4 just for this patch.
You mean that they think that it
Zeev Suraski wrote:
If it was an issue that everyone and their dog was bumping into, then I
may have thought differently - but it's an issue that is rare enough,
and can be worked around. And those that really need it to be fixed -
can use the patch.
As we have run into segfaults with
Zeev Suraski wrote:
If it was an issue that everyone and their dog was bumping into, then I
may have thought differently - but it's an issue that is rare enough,
and can be worked around. And those that really need it to be fixed -
can use the patch.
There were a few suspicious bugs that
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 12:00 30/05/2005, Lukas Smith wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
This patch breaks binary compatibility.
It cannot be broken in 4.3.x tree, and that doesn't make sense to release
4.4 just
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Christian Schneider wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
If it was an issue that everyone and their dog was bumping into, then I may
have thought differently - but it's an issue that is rare enough, and can be
worked around. And those that really need it to be fixed - can use
At 17:10 30/05/2005, Derick Rethans wrote:
Not fixing it is *not* an option. You fix something that's broken - you
don't leave it broken. That's called responsibility. And no, switching
to PHP 5 is not an option either.
Sorry Derick, but you saying that not fixing it and/or that switching to
Derick Rethans wrote:
If you decide not to fix the 4.x branch then we'd minimally need an easily
accessible document describing the known problems and work-arounds IMHO.
As I tried to do that in our large code base, I would say that's totally
not possible to do. There is no way you know
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Christian Schneider wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
If you decide not to fix the 4.x branch then we'd minimally need an easily
accessible document describing the known problems and work-arounds IMHO.
As I tried to do that in our large code base, I would say that's
At 18:01 30/05/2005, Wez Furlong wrote:
If we know the bug, and we have a fix, there shouldn't be anything
stopping us from making a release.
If this patch break binary compat, then the only logical move forward
is a 4.4 branch and release.
I think the question should really be: why don't we
I was talking about technical reasons against 4.4, not about breaking
the binary signature of 4.3
I don't think confusion is a good reason to not release a bug-fixed
version of PHP.
So, what's stopping the PHP project from kicking out 4.4?
--Wez.
On 5/30/05, Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is the argument about changing struct temp_variable?
Why cannot the desirable behaviour be obtained without
changing that particular structure?
- Sascha
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 17:10 30/05/2005, Derick Rethans wrote:
Not fixing it is *not* an option. You fix something that's broken - you
don't leave it broken. That's called responsibility. And no, switching
to PHP 5 is not an option either.
Sorry Derick, but you saying that not fixing it
Derick,
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
The problems with references are one of the main reasons I watch this
list. As others have stated, with many tens of thousands of lines of
code, it is extremely painful to figure out which misplaced or missing
has caused php to lose its mind. The
Hello Zeev,
Monday, May 30, 2005, 5:21:00 PM, you wrote:
At 18:01 30/05/2005, Wez Furlong wrote:
If we know the bug, and we have a fix, there shouldn't be anything
stopping us from making a release.
If this patch break binary compat, then the only logical move forward
is a 4.4 branch and
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Asking Joe Orton and the various other package maintainers from the
major distros might be a good idea too.
If there were to be no PHP 4.4 release with the fix I think that we
would integrate the patch (once it is ready, of course) into the PHP 4
ebuilds for Gentoo
Hello Sebastian,
Monday, May 30, 2005, 7:42:27 PM, you wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Asking Joe Orton and the various other package maintainers from the
major distros might be a good idea too.
If there were to be no PHP 4.4 release with the fix I think that we
would integrate the patch
Hey,
I think we need to clearly differentiate between features/limitations and
bugs. Often people on this list think that the former, especially
limitations, is something which desperately needs addressing, whereas I
think that addressing such issues in only the latest versions is fine (and
At 22:19 30/05/2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Sebastian,
Monday, May 30, 2005, 7:42:27 PM, you wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Asking Joe Orton and the various other package maintainers from the
major distros might be a good idea too.
If there were to be no PHP 4.4 release with the fix I
At 20:57 30/05/2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
We don't break BC here. We simply proceed as we did in the past. And we do
this to give the users the best PHP we can. On the other hand all you said
pretty much sounds like excuses to not do a new version. But why do you fear
that? Too much work - no
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Zeev Suraski wrote:
arguments. But it isn't. It's a bug that is pretty uncommon and can be
worked around in userspace. Yes, it's annoying if you bump into it, but in
the scale of severity, I don't think it rates very high.
It rates pretty high on my list when I
At 00:32 31/05/2005, Jani Taskinen wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Zeev Suraski wrote:
arguments. But it isn't. It's a bug that is pretty uncommon and can be
worked around in userspace. Yes, it's annoying if you bump into it, but
in the scale of severity, I don't think it rates very high.
Not sure who you're talking to but I know a large amount of companies (some
of them huge) who have based their development on PHP 5.
But anyway, it's really irrelevant to this discussion.
Andi
At 09:19 PM 5/30/2005 +0200, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Sebastian,
Monday, May 30, 2005, 7:42:27
Marcus Boerger wrote:
And the patch addresses some very serious problems.
Unfortunatley there are still a bunch of other issues
unaddressed by now. To prevent 4.5 from popping up to soon i
think we should all take some look into fixing those issues
too. Anybody interested in those with a
On May 30, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Not sure who you're talking to but I know a large amount of
companies (some of them huge) who have based their development on
PHP 5.
Can you share (or guess at) the skew of companies migrating existing
apps from PHP4 to PHP5 versus the
On Mon, 30 May 2005 23:39:13 +0300, in php.internals [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Zeev Suraski) wrote:
I don't think too many people consider PHP 5 as a beta of PHP 5.1. I
haven't bumped into many, the main thing I'm seeing is concern about the
ease of upgrading, which is slightly justified.
Slightly
32 matches
Mail list logo
