On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 03:36:04PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
I appreciate the sentiments of all who have weighed in on this, and I
do want to make sure that we are paying attention to the greater PHP
community's needs, not just Ubuntu's users. Shipping really old PHP
versions is definitely not
Just my two cents,
Most likely someone that has a system that they expect to last for five years
is going to set it up and forget about it. So they probably don't care that
it's up to date. They just want it to work.
If not they'll likely either compile their own php or be updating their
hi,
Referring to:
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55300
and in some extend to https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55175
I tend to think that it could have a very bad impact on existing and
will prevent many users to migrate easily to 5.4, or smoothly. I think
we have to figure a fix for this
Stefan,
Thanks for the reply. I disagree on a few points that you made
however. See below for my reply.
Please refer to:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/horizontalreuse#handling_of_propertiesstate
Traits do not provide any provisioning for handling state.
The original RFC was correct in that
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
Referring to:
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55300
and in some extend to https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55175
I tend to think that it could have a very bad impact on existing and
will prevent many users to
Em Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:53:07 +0100, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
escreveu:
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55300
and in some extend to https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=55175
I tend to think that it could have a very bad impact on existing and
will prevent many users to migrate easily to
Hi:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/datetime_and_daylight_saving_time
I will move this to voting phase tomorrow unless I hear objections.
Thanks,
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
data intensive web and database programming
Hi internals,
It's been a while since Stas accepted that, but it seems the class
haven't been merged since then.
What's the status of this? Can I expect SplClassLoader in 5.4.0?
It seems it was approved, but wasn't merged and thread was lost in space. =(
There's an RFC for it:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:47 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals,
It's been a while since Stas accepted that, but it seems the class
haven't been merged since then.
What's the status of this? Can I expect SplClassLoader in 5.4.0?
It seems it was
On 24 October 2011 16:53, Paul Dragoonis dragoo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:47 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals,
It's been a while since Stas accepted that, but it seems the class
haven't been merged since then.
What's the status
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:57 PM, David Coallier dav...@php.net wrote:
On 24 October 2011 16:53, Paul Dragoonis dragoo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:47 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals,
It's been a while since Stas accepted that, but
On 24 October 2011 15:57, David Coallier dav...@php.net wrote:
On 24 October 2011 16:53, Paul Dragoonis dragoo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:47 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi internals,
It's been a while since Stas accepted that, but it
hi,
I'd to be in favor to include it. However I would like to hear more
from the people behind PSR-0 to be sure that it is actually what is
needed and to complete the RFC (it is rather missing real info,
examples and tests).
Please also update the patch and attach it to the RFC.
Cheers,
On
I've been following this but not on the internal portions of PSR-0...
Why it is needed:
Currently all of the implementations on the autoloading side is pushed in
through a custom class or function inside of spl_autoload whereas the
registered autoloading takes place. Currently each framework
Hi!
On 10/24/11 9:45 AM, Mike Willbanks wrote:
By standardizing this inside of an extension gains us 2 very major features
(IMO):
But we already have the extension, don't we?
From the RFC prospective it does seem like many things are missing:
1. Examples
* The easiest example being that of
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.comwrote:
On 24 October 2011 15:57, David Coallier dav...@php.net wrote:
On 24 October 2011 16:53, Paul Dragoonis dragoo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:47 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com
What are peoples' thoughts on the name of the class? The word auto
fits best with all that has come before, yet the proposal here uses
class: what about SplAutoloader? With the introduction of this new
class, whatever the name, what happens to __autoload() and
spl_autoload_register(), if
Hi!
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/datetime_and_daylight_saving_time
I will move this to voting phase tomorrow unless I hear objections.
Not an objection but more a side question - is this related to fixing
TLA timezones in general? Right now they fail in a multitude of
scenarios which have
We currently use the php-mssql package (in conjunction with FreeTDS)
for our setup.
In other languages connecting to MSSQL we have come to rely on the
Application Name being visible in Traces and the MSSQL profiler.
In PHP it gets hard coded to 'PHP 5' even if there are multiple PHP
applications
Hi Stas:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:57:51AM -0700, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Not an objection but more a side question - is this related to
fixing TLA timezones in general? Right now they fail in a multitude
of scenarios which have nothing to do with transitions, such as:
$t = new
Hi Stas:
The next release is planned to be RC1 and is scheduled for November 10.
You want the DateTime DST fixing RFC
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/datetime_and_daylight_saving_time) implemented
before RC1, right? If so, keep in mind that voting on it will start
tomorrow and finish on November 1.
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Daniel Convissor wrote:
The next release is planned to be RC1 and is scheduled for November 10.
You want the DateTime DST fixing RFC
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/datetime_and_daylight_saving_time) implemented
before RC1, right? If so, keep in mind that voting on it will
Hi Derick:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 08:31:20PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Daniel Convissor wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/datetime_and_daylight_saving_time
I don't see why this requires voting. It's a bug fix.
While it's kind of a bug fix, it's also asking for
Hi!
You want the DateTime DST fixing RFC
(https://wiki.php.net/rfc/datetime_and_daylight_saving_time) implemented
before RC1, right? If so, keep in mind that voting on it will start
tomorrow and finish on November 1. Then someone needs to implement
it. The deadline may need adjusting.
As
hi,
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
The change I did in 5.4 should be reverted and synced with 5.3 in the
short term because it doesn't work reliably (even not considering the BC
break) -- there are other methods for getting an invalid instance
I've started toying around with adjusting the patch. A bit of rewrite
is required but I'm attempting to modify the patch to be included
directly in SPL with the name SplClassLoader so that one can do:
$cl = new \SplClassLoader(..., ...);
Once the patch is adjusted to fit with SPL, we
hi,
Could you open a FR at bugs.php.net and attach the patch to it please?
Could be easier to track (and the # to the RFC too :)
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:25 PM, David Coallier dav...@php.net wrote:
I've started toying around with adjusting the patch. A bit of rewrite
is required but I'm
Could you open a FR at bugs.php.net and attach the patch to it please?
Could be easier to track (and the # to the RFC too :)
Yeah I'll do that once I have the tests adjusted and once I know the
patch actually works as expected.
--
David Coallier
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
Hi,
I have always disliked the lack of modern packages on Debian/Ubuntu distros,
I feel like minor are misused as major versions, with an exaggerated fear to
upgrade. It's like building web sites for IE6 because people are not allowed
to upgrade to IE9, very frustrating for developers and hard to
hi Clint,
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Clint Byrum cl...@ubuntu.com wrote:
I appreciate the sentiments of all who have weighed in on this, and I
do want to make sure that we are paying attention to the greater PHP
community's needs, not just Ubuntu's users. Shipping really old PHP
not to rely on broken apps:
php-5.3.8-21.fc14.rh.20110823.x86_64
mysql-5.5.17-3.fc14.rh.20111022.x86_64
postfix-2.8.6-3.fc14.rh.20111024.x86_64
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Excerpts from devis's message of Mon Oct 24 15:18:14 -0700 2011:
Hi,
I have always disliked the lack of modern packages on Debian/Ubuntu distros,
I feel like minor are misused as major versions, with an exaggerated fear to
upgrade. It's like building web sites for IE6 because people are not
Hi internals,
For all those interested, I have updated the RFC with better
explanation, included example implementation and also example usage.
If you have any other wishes, doubts, etc, feel free to ask on this
thread and I'll quickly answer here and also update the RFC
accordingly.
The url for
Hi Anthony:
On 24 Oct 2011, at 07:06, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
Please refer to:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/horizontalreuse#handling_of_propertiesstate
Traits do not provide any provisioning for handling state.
The original RFC was correct in that traits should not have any state.
However
34 matches
Mail list logo
