Dan, I'm a PHP developer myself too and I always compile PHP and Apache for
my own (PostgreSQL is good for me as it's packaged for Archlinux). But the
majority is just dumb. And you're right about the bug reports, lots of them
would be just like "it doesn't work because of reasons". But they'd at
l
> That's what Ralf and I suggested all along. By the way, the problem is
> that most of the web developers don't know anything about IT. I guess
> most of them use Windows (and you can't expect a Windows user to
> compile stuff), and the majority of the other half uses Ubuntu and
> never even saw t
ry Garfield
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
Hi!
> down. Right or wrong, good or bad, the gulf between PHP developer and C
> developer is *huge*, and doing anything at all with the PHP engine,
We're not talking here writing code in C. We're talking here t
But if even that is too hard, how about making something like spec file
for RPM and a script that d/ls a snapshot and then builds a RPM from it?
Installing RPM shouldn't be too hard?
Why reinvent the wheel? The open build service already exists and does
just that. No need for hundreds of laymen
Hi!
> down. Right or wrong, good or bad, the gulf between PHP developer and C
> developer is *huge*, and doing anything at all with the PHP engine,
We're not talking here writing code in C. We're talking here typing
"configure" in shell, hitting enter, then typing "make" in shell, then
hitting
hi,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:42:51 +0100):
>>On Jan 30, 2013 1:30 AM, "Jan Ehrhardt" wrote:
>>>
>>http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/results-20130125-5.5.0alpha4-5.5rd86e14b.html
>>>
>>> I am a lit
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:42:51 +0100):
>On Jan 30, 2013 1:30 AM, "Jan Ehrhardt" wrote:
>>
>http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/results-20130125-5.5.0alpha4-5.5rd86e14b.html
>>
>> I am a little surprised you are still using Apache 2.2 as test
>> environmen
On Jan 30, 2013 1:30 AM, "Jan Ehrhardt" wrote:
>
> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:23:59 +0100):
> >Zero skills are required to setup a PHP. But a bit more clue is
> >required to test Drupal. I can help the PHP setup automation but would
> >need your help to setup D7+ setup with
On 01/29/2013 08:45 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 03:12 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>>> If I could run my own VM (that much I can do) and periodically just do
>>> apt-get update php-head, that would lower the barrier to testing new
>>> versions by several orders of magnitude. (Yeah ye
Larry Garfield in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:45:17 -0600):
>On 01/29/2013 03:12 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>
>> Is building from git really that much harder? Yes, it takes a little bit
>> of tweaking to get your configure flags right and getting all the right
>> dev versions of the dependen
On 01/29/2013 03:12 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
If I could run my own VM (that much I can do) and periodically just do
apt-get update php-head, that would lower the barrier to testing new
versions by several orders of magnitude. (Yeah yeah insert RPM vs. Apt
debate here; both are good to have.)
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:23:59 +0100):
>Zero skills are required to setup a PHP. But a bit more clue is
>required to test Drupal. I can help the PHP setup automation but would
>need your help to setup D7+ setup with major plugins to automate the
>tests. By the way, we alrea
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Ralf Lang wrote:
> The one thing apt-get/zypper saves is time. You eliminate the commit
> states which won't build at all, at least for the end users. Now they
> have more time to figure how they make their legacy code work with the
> newest git PHP and why their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2013 02:49 PM, Ralf Lang wrote:
> The one thing apt-get/zypper saves is time. You eliminate the
> commit states which won't build at all, at least for the end users.
> Now they have more time to figure how they make their legacy code
> work wi
/2013 22:31
To: Larry Garfield
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
On 01/29/2013 01:12 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> I realize this is slightly more complicated than an apt-get, but
> pre-building packages that will work with all the combinations of
> libraries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Is building from git really that much harder? Yes, it takes a
> little bit of tweaking to get your configure flags right and
> getting all the right dev versions of the dependencies installed,
> but at least on Debian/Ubuntu (since you mentioned apt)
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27 +0100):
>Question: Did you test D7/8 and their respective plugins with php 5.5?
OK. A part of that challenge I took: compile PHP 5.5 Alpha 4 ZTS for
Windows with as many extensions as I could. The result:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8954372/php-
On 01/29/2013 01:12 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> I realize this is slightly more complicated than an apt-get, but
> pre-building packages that will work with all the combinations of
> libraries and things out there is a PITA. By building your own you get
> to choose everything by editing your cn scr
On 01/29/2013 12:43 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 1/29/13 11:46 AM, Ralf Lang wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Am 29.01.2013 18:38, schrieb Pierre Joye:
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Attila Bukor
>>> wrote:
I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other p
On 1/29/13 11:46 AM, Ralf Lang wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 29.01.2013 18:38, schrieb Pierre Joye:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Attila Bukor
wrote:
I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects use nightly
builds successfully. I don't think a vbox image
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Ralf Lang wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am 29.01.2013 18:38, schrieb Pierre Joye:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Attila Bukor
> > wrote:
> >> I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects use nightly
> >> builds succes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 29.01.2013 18:38, schrieb Pierre Joye:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Attila Bukor
> wrote:
>> I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects use nightly
>> builds successfully. I don't think a vbox image would be
>> necessary as no-one
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Attila Bukor wrote:
> I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects use nightly builds
> successfully. I don't think a vbox image would be necessary as no-one
> would use nightly builds on a production environment,
It is not about using anything in prod bu
I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects use nightly builds
successfully. I don't think a vbox image would be necessary as no-one
would use nightly builds on a production environment, but if web developers
who feel a little adventurous could add an official PHP nightly-build
repository
hi Larry,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
> On 1/29/13 5:08 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> hi Jan,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Pierre,
>>>
>>> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27 +0100):
This is one of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 29.01.2013 17:55, schrieb Larry Garfield:
> On 1/29/13 5:08 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> hi Jan,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jan Ehrhardt
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Pierre,
>>>
>>> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27
>>> +0100)
On 1/29/13 5:08 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi Jan,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27 +0100):
This is one of the reason why the 'new' release process RFC does not
allow BC breaks. But we can't be 100% sure that
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:08:16 +0100):
>What do you need to get D7 tested under 5.5? I mean once you have a CI
>in place, it is not hard to setup one instance to test 5.5.
I do not need anything, except for 48 hours in a day and some disk space
on my Win7 laptop ;-)
>Wait
hi Jan,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
> Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27 +0100):
>>This is one of the reason why the 'new' release process RFC does not
>>allow BC breaks. But we can't be 100% sure that we do not introduce
>>one without
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27 +0100):
>This is one of the reason why the 'new' release process RFC does not
>allow BC breaks. But we can't be 100% sure that we do not introduce
>one without you, all projects and users, doing intensive testing using
>your apps,
Pierre Joye wrote:
> It would be already very good if wp (strongly) suggests to use #php
> 5.3/4 instead of 5.2 on http://wordpress.org/about/requirements/ and
> with a notice in the installer code.
That's a great idea, and it's something I'll definitely try and bring up
with the other developers.
hi Ryan,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Ryan McCue wrote:
> Larry Garfield wrote:
>> It's great to hear you say that, given that the messaging coming out of
>> WP at the time was rather hostile. :-)
>
> As I noted, the dynamics have changed significantly. I'd say that core
> committer team as a
Larry Garfield wrote:
> It's great to hear you say that, given that the messaging coming out of
> WP at the time was rather hostile. :-)
As I noted, the dynamics have changed significantly. I'd say that core
committer team as a whole is now much less conservative than before,
although they're stil
On 01/29/2013 01:30 AM, Ryan McCue wrote:
If Wordpress announced that it was going to start requiring PHP 5.3 as
of some date 6+ months in the future (and there are advantages to doing
so that don't require major BC breaking rewrites), I think you'd see a
rather significant abandonment of PHP 5.2
Larry Garfield wrote:
> Hi Ryan. While I understand that level of conservatism, I think it is
> somewhat unfounded. The PHP community at large decided to deprecate PHP
> 4 en masse, and put hosts on notice. It worked, too. The GoPHP5 project
> included over 100 projects and 200 hosts that collec
On 01/28/2013 08:54 PM, Ryan McCue wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
The vast majority of the PHP community is a silent one; These people
don't participate here on internals; They don't attend conferences; They
use it - the vast majority of them in a professional manner - and they
picked it because
Hi!
> ago I was once again confronted with errors under PHP 5.4. The module,
> responsible for the error: Content Access.
> http://drupal.org/node/1533186
I see there: Notice: Array to string conversion in
form_process_checkbox(). This means the module has a bug, and pretty bad
one at that, array
hi Jan,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> De spijker op z'n kop, as the saying over here in Amsterdam is. There
> are two reasons why I try to change to PHP 5.4 once in a while:
> 1. In my testing it is a little bit (10%) faster than PHP 5.3.
> 2. PHP 5.3 will be out of supp
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> The vast majority of the PHP community is a silent one; These people
> don't participate here on internals; They don't attend conferences; They
> use it - the vast majority of them in a professional manner - and they
> picked it because they like it the way it is, not becau
Zeev Suraski in php.internals (Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:50:14 +0200):
>PHP has become the most popular Web language in existence WITHOUT these
>features. Most users couldn't care less about them. They're happy
>without them. They're happ*ier* without them. They'd rather a faster PHP
>that did exactl
Zeev Suraski wrote:
PHP has become the most popular Web language in existence WITHOUT these
features. Most users couldn't care less about them. They're happy
without them. They're happ*ier* without them. They'd rather a faster PHP
that did exactly the same thing it does today - and not a slow
dlsniper
<http://www.zend.com/en/yellow-pages#show-ClientCandidateID=ZEND013894>
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Clint Priest [mailto:cpri...@zerocue.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:15 PM
> &
> Can we stop calling things "new shiny features" as if that means
anything? It's
> empty rhetoric. When you treat your users like unintelligent noobies who
are
> just going to hang themselves when you give them a rope, then that's the
type
> of users you will end up with.
If it doesn't mean anyth
Stas,
Remember we talked about this while discussing voting? What we have here
> is a huge language feature (and, like it or dislike it, it is a big
> feature which had a lot of effort, energy and though spent on it, and
> also has a lot of consequences for PHP language, which may be good or
> bad
In the past months, I talked to a lot of German companies using PHP or Java:
All PHP companies were using 5.2/5.3 and planned to upgrade to 5.4.
Almost all were using default binaries from their favorite Linux
distribution on their production systems.
Only one was building their own extensions, bas
Hi!
> I mean more "no matter if it is or not", but the result is not tie
> anyway, accepted or not.
Remember we talked about this while discussing voting? What we have here
is a huge language feature (and, like it or dislike it, it is a big
feature which had a lot of effort, energy and though spe
2013/1/28 Zeev Suraski
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Clint Priest [mailto:cpri...@zerocue.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:15 PM
> > To: Peter Cowburn
> > Cc: Zeev Suraski; Pierre Joye; PHP internals
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting peri
Hi!
> Zeev, for one, was one of them asking to have a 2/3 majority for any
> language related RFC. That's what applies to this RFC, and it is, as
> of now, accepted. I don't see how the vote is remotely close to a tie.
I'm sorry, I am seeing 34/21 result. It's 61% for, 39% against - which
means,
Zeev Suraski wrote:
They speak in volumes
- PHP 5.4 is used in less than 1% of the sites using PHP today, and even
the relatively revolutionary 5.3 is still a lot less popular than 5.2.
The new shiny features are not all that interesting for most people.
And I wonder how many of the 1% using 5.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 28.01.2013 18:35, schrieb Pierre Joye:
> On Jan 28, 2013 6:22 PM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
>>
>> I agree, but we’re in opposite camps on this feature. What does
>> that
> mean? J
>
> Go back to our roots? :-)
Classless, Exception-less and when som
On Jan 28, 2013 6:22 PM, "Zeev Suraski" wrote:
>
> I agree, but we’re in opposite camps on this feature. What does that
mean? J
Go back to our roots? :-)
I agree, but we’re in opposite camps on this feature. What does that mean?
J
I think many of us are purely and simply totally out of sync with our
users. I have no immediate solution but this is something we must solve,
now.
On Jan 28, 2013 6:07 PM, "Zeev Suraski"
> The community that participates in internals isn't necessarily
> representative of the community at large.
>
Letzten me clarify my view. I do not attend hyped conferences, because I
want to meet are not there. However I meet a lot of our "silent" community
> -Original Message-
> From: Clint Priest [mailto:cpri...@zerocue.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:15 PM
> To: Peter Cowburn
> Cc: Zeev Suraski; Pierre Joye; PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
>
>
> On 1/28/2013 6:12 AM, Peter Cowburn wr
I also disagree with an open-ended voting period. I'm fine with having
a long voting window, but when a vote is called it should declare when
the voting will end. This just makes sense to me.
Since we're on the topic of voting, I also want to bring up that 50% +
1 is actually pretty low for someth
On 1/28/2013 6:12 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
On 28 January 2013 12:03, Clint Priest wrote:
If you're still worried about this making it in, don't worry. Nikita and I
have given up, to the determinant of the community.
Then please close the voting.
Since there is no "maximum voting period" and
> I mean more "no matter if it is or not", but the result is not tie
anyway, accepted
> or not.
>
> I find the way things are being done right now as a bad thing. There is
a time for
> discussions and argumentations, and there is a time for votes. Coming in
with
> things like that does not give me
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> Zeev, for one, was one of them asking to have a 2/3 majority for any
> language
>> related RFC. That's what applies to this RFC, and it is, as of now,
> accepted. I don't
>> see how the vote is remotely close to a tie.
>
> Are you talking abo
> -Original Message-
> From: Zeev Suraski [mailto:z...@zend.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:00 PM
> To: 'Pierre Joye'; 'Clint Priest'
> Cc: 'PHP internals'
> Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
>
> > Zeev, for o
> Zeev, for one, was one of them asking to have a 2/3 majority for any
language
> related RFC. That's what applies to this RFC, and it is, as of now,
accepted. I don't
> see how the vote is remotely close to a tie.
Are you talking about https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2?
There ar
hi Clint, Zeev,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Clint Priest wrote:
>
> On 1/28/2013 5:19 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>
>> I feel that this is what was done in this particular case, not the other
>> way around. That what brought me to bring up that subject here in the first
>> place. This particula
Am 28.01.2013 12:19, schrieb Zeev Suraski:
> OK, please put a one week as an option too. To put things in perspective,
> elections that effect the fate of billions of people typically end in
> 24hrs.
But they sometimes require weeks of analysing punch cards ;-)
--
Sebastian Bergmann
On 28 January 2013 12:03, Clint Priest wrote:
>
> If you're still worried about this making it in, don't worry. Nikita and I
> have given up, to the determinant of the community.
>
Then please close the voting.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http:
On 1/28/2013 5:19 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I feel that this is what was done in this particular case, not the
other way around. That what brought me to bring up that subject here
in the first place. This particular RFC was the only RFC where I
noticed this weird 'no sooner than' language, and i
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> I will add a vote on that in the voting RFC, as un update, so we will a
> clear(er)
>> position for the next RFCs.
>
> OK, please put a one week as an option too. To put things in perspective,
> elections that effect the fate of billions o
> -Original Message-
> From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:07 PM
> To: Zeev Suraski
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
>
> hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Zeev Suraski wrot
hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> > My suggestion is for voting periods to be limited to one week,
>> > regardless of the topic. It should be more than enough. Regardless,
> an 'open
>> ended'
>> > voting period is unacceptable IMHO.
>>
>> You were one of the person w
> > My suggestion is for voting periods to be limited to one week,
> > regardless of the topic. It should be more than enough. Regardless,
an 'open
> ended'
> > voting period is unacceptable IMHO.
>
> You were one of the person who requested to have at least two weeks, so
> nobody can miss a vote
On 01/28/2013 10:22 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> My suggestion is for voting periods to be limited to one week, regardless
> of the topic. It should be more than enough. Regardless, an ‘open ended’
> voting period is unacceptable IMHO.
Whatever the voting period is, IMHO the most important thing w
hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> There’s something that I’m not quite following regarding open votes.
>
> Why are we saying that ‘votes will end no sooner than X’, instead of
> actually saying when they *will* end?
>
>
>
> If there’s no clear end date for a
70 matches
Mail list logo
