Hi Anatol,
I didn't completely get your ideas, but if tsrm_ls_cache can't be exported
on Windows directly, can we have a copy of tsrm_ls_cache in each DLL/EXE
and initialize it once?
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Anatol Belski anatol@belski.net
wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
On
hi Kris,
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Per discussion in an earlier thread. Here's the RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/checkdnsrr-default-type
Basically, this RFC seeks to make it so that PHP's checkdnsrr() function,
which is most commonly used to
Some browsers do. Some versions of IE are buggy when the URL include
underscores:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/794243/internet-explorer-ignores-cookies-on-some-domains-cannot-read-or-set-cookies
I think that filter_var must follow the RFC by default. Maybe can we add a
flag to allow
On Sep 21, 2014 11:52 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi Kris,
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
Per discussion in an earlier thread. Here's the RFC:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/checkdnsrr-default-type
Basically, this RFC seeks to
Oh, IE. *sigh*
Adding a new flag sounds like a good idea indeed,
`FILTER_VALIDATE_UNCOMPLIANT_URL` sounds good enough?
I guess it should accept underscores and domain names starting with numbers
too.
Regards,
*Florian Margaine*
P.S: sorry Kevin for the double mail.
Le 22 sept. 2014 09:03,
From: Leigh [mailto:lei...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 11:57 PM
Traditionally this is requested as a loop {} else {} structure,
however due to the choice of keyword this causes significant BC
problems.
I have written an RFC presenting this feature as loop {} or {} along
I'll implement optional (and not default) support of IDN in filter_var().
Does anyone known if it's better to use libIDN (LGPL) or ICU (custom
license deviated from the X license) from a license point of view?
2014-09-19 16:18 GMT+02:00 Chris Wright c...@daverandom.com:
On 19 September 2014
I've recently proposed a refactoring of FILTER_VALIDATE_URL:
https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/826
I can easily add the support of this new flag is everyone agree.
2014-09-22 9:09 GMT+02:00 Florian Margaine flor...@margaine.com:
Oh, IE. *sigh*
Adding a new flag sounds like a good idea
I noticed a regression in 5.5.17RC1, reported it (#67965) and it got
fixed in f86b2193 on the 5.5 branch by Daniel Lowrey.
But this fix didn't make it in 5.5.17 final. I posted the following
message on the 5.5.17RC1 release announcement:
What's the benefit of doing a Release Candidate/QA
Sounds like a great idea! Don't forget to update
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68049 when it'll be done.
Regards,
*Florian Margaine*
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Kévin Dunglas dung...@gmail.com wrote:
I've recently proposed a refactoring of FILTER_VALIDATE_URL:
On 22 Sep 2014, at 08:18, Kévin Dunglas dung...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll implement optional (and not default) support of IDN in filter_var().
Does anyone known if it's better to use libIDN (LGPL) or ICU (custom
license deviated from the X license) from a license point of view?
We already
Hey:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Leigh lei...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list!
This is an item that has been repeatedly requested in various forms,
with no solid implementation to back it up, yet remaining quite
desirable to the developer community at large.
Loops with a default block,
On 22/09/14 08:47, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Does anyone known if it's better to use libIDN (LGPL) or ICU (custom
license deviated from the X license) from a license point of view?
We already use ICU in many places, so it's more likely to be available and
people can get IDN support for free. I
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 21, 2014 11:52 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
Well, for what I can see users already take into account this part of
the issue then:
https://github.com/search?l=phpq=checkdnsrrtype=Codeutf8=%E2%9C%93
On Sep 22, 2014 1:09 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 21, 2014 11:52 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
Well, for what I can see users already take into account this part of
the issue then:
On Monday, 22 September 2014, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 21 Sep 2014, at 22:49, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com
javascript:; wrote:
It is closed now.
The vote is closed now, fact. That does not prevent further (hopefully
productive) discussion from happening, and it also
On 22 September 2014 08:17, Christian Stoller stol...@leonex.de wrote:
I like this proposal as I am using this feature in Twig very often.
But I would really prefer using else instead of or, because it
is already common in the mentioned projects.
Maybe you could reconsider if it is really not
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 22, 2014 1:09 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 21, 2014 11:52 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
Well, for
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com wrote:
If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their votes so
that the tally is in you favour is inexcusable.
did I miss something? What is this request to remove votes thing?
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye |
On 22 September 2014 08:49, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
Maybe I am too conservative. I don't like this idea. :
And I DO THINK, we should try to stop brings lots of new things into PHP7.
I am worring whether it can be release in the next year
Can you give some more
On 22 September 2014 10:21, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their votes so
that the tally is in you favour is inexcusable.
did I miss
WTF is going on here? Looks like the vote was closed nearly 24 hours
early on a weekend. While the latter is not nice, closing early is a
no-go. So what are we going to do? Reopen the vote for another day or
completely restart it?
--
Regards,
Mike
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
WTF is going on here? Looks like the vote was closed nearly 24 hours
early on a weekend. While the latter is not nice, closing early is a
no-go. So what are we going to do? Reopen the vote for another day or
completely
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 September 2014 10:21, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their
On 22 Sep 2014, at 10:46, Xinchen Hui larue...@php.net wrote:
ask people to vote yes, close the vote immeditely once it reach the
2/3 requirement..
it's not cool, and it's not about RFC process... it's about manner…
I didn’t close it because it reached the 2/3 requirement. I was lucky
On 22/09/14 10:42, Pierre Joye wrote:
This is getting really annoying. 2nd or 3rd time it happens, between
people changing contents during votes, closing too early, too late,
asking to change votes, etc.
At a very least a vote should not end until at least 7 days after the
last change to the
On Sep 22, 2014 2:16 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 22, 2014 1:09 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sep
On 22 Sep 2014, at 10:36, Michael Wallner m...@php.net wrote:
WTF is going on here? Looks like the vote was closed nearly 24 hours
early on a weekend. While the latter is not nice, closing early is a
no-go. So what are we going to do? Reopen the vote for another day or
completely restart
On 2014-09-21 02:21, Sara Golemon wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Leigh lei...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 September 2014 20:47, Sara Golemon p...@golemon.com wrote:
I like the general idea, but rather than explicitly focusing on
the 'or' keyword, how about just giving all loop constructs
On 22 September 2014 11:10, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
If we’re going to reopen or restart, I’d prefer to completely restart it than
to just reopen it. A clean slate.
Most of the issues I saw raised were related to one half of the RFC,
the shifts or the casts, perhaps you'd make better
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 22, 2014 2:16 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Kris Craig kris.cr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 22, 2014 1:09 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon,
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Peter Cowburn wrote:
On 22 September 2014 10:21, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Peter Cowburn petercowb...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you say so. Still, the asking of individuals to remove their
votes so that the tally is in
Hi Florian,
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014, Florian Margaine wrote:
I specifically mean to ask @derick about this issue I'm having, since
he is the maintainer of ext/date.
I wrote this pull request for the DateTimeZone::getOffset method to
accept a DateTimeInterface instead of a DateTime object:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Patrick Schaaf wrote:
Am 20.09.2014 01:35 schrieb Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/isset_ternary#vote
Hi,
got a question after being bitten my the issue yesterday in the context of
the @yadda ?: 'default' form yesterday:
What about yadda that
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if it
is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not contributors to
the documentation, extensions, php-src or anything else, to have the
ability to vote on RFCs?
I’d never
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 03:16 +0100, Leigh wrote:
I think everyone with the ability to vote should have to communicate
their reasons behind their yes/no publicly on this mailing list for
it to be valid. If you cannot describe in your own
Hi Derick,
Thanks for your answer!
Indeed, I did plan on doing another PR for 5.6 while keeping ZEND_ARG_INFO.
I'll review your notes and take care of them.
Regards,
*Florian Margaine*
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
Hi Florian,
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014,
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a 50%
majority, 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds *majority*. The
RFC, like with many other important things is of course too vague on
this.
An 8:8 vote
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if it
is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not contributors to
the documentation, extensions, php-src or
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if it
is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e.
On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
50% majority, 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds
*majority*. The RFC, like with many other important things is
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if it
is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not contributors
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Andrey Andreev wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote:
On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
50% majority, 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds
On Sep 22, 2014 3:31 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote:
On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
On Sep 22, 2014 3:29 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Andrey Andreev wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:32, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
IMHO, denying non-karma people to vote is like to making PHP a company's
product, or, in another words, you use what we built and shut up, because
only listening people won't allow to accept/deny a particular RFC, only
votes do. People surely don't comment (myself included) why they are
choosing
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Remi Collet r...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 19/09/2014 18:25, Daniel Lowrey a écrit :
In an effort to fix a very old (seven years old) DoS
vulnerability involving encrypted streams I created a
regression where
On September 22, 2014 4:21:29 PM CEST, Rafael Kassner kass...@php.net wrote:
IMHO, denying non-karma people to vote is like to making PHP a
company's
product, or, in another words, you use what we built and shut up,
because
only listening people won't allow to accept/deny a particular RFC, only
Hi,
Sorry to have not detect this problem at RFC time, but the new hardcoded
cipher list, cause some trouble in Fedora.
See: https://bugs.php.net/68074
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Nmav/CryptoPolicies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Sorry to have not detect this problem at RFC time, but the new hardcoded
cipher list, cause some trouble in Fedora.
See: https://bugs.php.net/68074
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy
Hi,
Sorry to have not detect this problem at RFC time, but the new hardcoded
cipher list, cause some trouble in Fedora.
See: https://bugs.php.net/68074
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Nmav/CryptoPolicies
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Johannes Schlüter
johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
Slightly provocative: Why should I be forced to maintain code by people who
don't want to maintain it themselves? Probably even due to votes by people
about whom I don't know anything? Mind that most maintenance
Hi,
That's a bad thing we need to fix ASAP.
I think for 5.6.1 we'll revert it , if not, we'll need an RC2, which
is something we usually don't do (but as this could involve security,
we may do it).
The fix can be merged to 5.5.18RC1, next week, to have an RC cycle if
not part of a
On 9/20/14, 0:11 , Sara Golemon wrote:
On Sep 19, 2014, at 18:29, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things,
Yes, you are.
but I wonder if it is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not
contributors to the documentation, extensions, php-src
Hi,
Having done a few PRs now, I\#039;d like to assign bugs to myself on
bugs.php.net to avoid having several people working on the same one. For this,
I need a php.net account :-)
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68057
is a regression introduced in PHP 5.6.
So code which still worked with PHP 5.5 breaks in 5.6.
The big issue is here, that the fix for this bug requires ABI breakage.
(changing an unsigned short into a zend_uint)
I know that ABI compatibility is a pretty
-Original Message-
From: Derick Rethans [mailto:der...@php.net]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 2:33 PM
To: Andrea Faulds
Cc: PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Is it fair that people with no karma can vote on
RFCs?
I think people's votes should only count if they have karma to
On Sep 22, 2014 8:56 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Last, the 2nd sub-bullet of the 2nd bullet (regular participant of
internals discussions) is especially problematic - as it basically pulls
the barrier to entry to nothing, and is the opposite of well-defined.
When
we revise the
On Sep 22, 2014 8:56 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
account for people contributing docs and other types of submissions. I'd
also consider adding a requirement for contributing at least X commits
(say
20 or 50) so that someone who did a one-off or two-off patch won't have
the
same
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Bob Weinand bobw...@hotmail.com wrote:
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68057
is a regression introduced in PHP 5.6.
So code which still worked with PHP 5.5 breaks in 5.6.
The big issue is here, that the fix for this bug requires ABI breakage.
(changing an
On Sep 22, 2014 10:05 PM, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote:
I don't want to say anything else here, as technically this is thread
hijacking (sorry Andrea) but I am very interested in collaborating with
anyone who would like to try to improve the RFC process. Perhaps reply to
me off-list if you
Hi,
Just a side remark: from an external point of view, it seems like you need
an application to handle the RFCs. An application with a strict business
logic, which leaves no ambiguity as to when and how an RFC should be valid.
The what is more ambiguous however, and I'm not sure as to how it
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 22, 2014 3:31 PM, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Michael Wallner wrote:
On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans der...@php.net
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 22, 2014 10:05 PM, Levi Morrison le...@php.net wrote:
I don't want to say anything else here, as technically this is thread
hijacking (sorry Andrea) but I am very interested in collaborating with
anyone who
Hi!
I didn’t close it because the time suited me most. I made an honest
mistake and closed it 22 or so hours early because I forgot I’d
opened the vote at ~23:00 and not ~02:00. Unfortunately, I realised
my mistake after merging the patch. This was definitely not
intentional.
That's why we
Hi!
- One about having scalar typed arguements, hinted or not, simple
yes/no, so we at least agree on having the feature
I'm not sure how that would work. We agree on having what feature?
Having coercive typing and having strict typing are two different
options, working in different way and
On 22 September 2014 04:32, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Andrea Faulds wrote:
Perhaps I’m being unfair and overthinking things, but I wonder if it
is really fair for people who have no karma, i.e. not contributors to
the documentation, extensions, php-src or
On Sep 22, 2014 8:39 AM, Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
On September 22, 2014 4:21:29 PM CEST, Rafael Kassner kass...@php.net
wrote:
IMHO, denying non-karma people to vote is like to making PHP a
company's
product, or, in another words, you use what we built and shut up,
Good evening again,
Here’s a new RFC: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/zpp_fail_on_overflow
Thoughts appreciated, as is help with the patch, though I can probably manage
on my own.
Thanks!
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
On Sep 22, 2014 11:06 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
- One about having scalar typed arguements, hinted or not, simple
yes/no, so we at least agree on having the feature
I'm not sure how that would work. We agree on having what feature?
Having coercive typing and
PHP serialization is slowest in PHP Session, clients NoSQL, ...
I would like to have in PHP 7, a new serialization algorithm or custom
handler to serialize.
My opinion is that the best choice is to use msgpack, it is
+110% faster
-30% data size
HHVM discussed this issue, but all boils down to
On Sep 23, 2014 1:23 AM, Park Framework park.framew...@gmail.com wrote:
PHP serialization is slowest in PHP Session, clients NoSQL, ...
I would like to have in PHP 7, a new serialization algorithm or custom
handler to serialize.
The latter is already possible and there are many good
Hi,
On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 14:36 -0700, Kris Craig wrote:
Slightly provocative: Why should I be forced to maintain code by
people who
don't want to maintain it themselves?
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You choose to contribute to PHP
in the manner in which you do, just as other
Hi Kris,
On a broad level, your RFC asserts that checkdnsrr() is used to
determine whether or not a hostname exists, but you don't actually
define exists. It seems to me you're glossing over the fact that
existence is application-specific and doesn't add up to one single
RR type or set of types.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Sanford Whiteman figureone...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Kris,
On a broad level, your RFC asserts that checkdnsrr() is used to
determine whether or not a hostname exists, but you don't actually
define exists. It seems to me you're glossing over the fact that
What would happen is it'd throw an E_DEPRECATED for at least the remainder
of 5.x, then throw the usual E_WARNING for a missing argument starting in
7.x with no default.
Sounds OK to me now that I've noticed this:
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=68081
Pretty sure that's a sane report,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de
wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 14:36 -0700, Kris Craig wrote:
Slightly provocative: Why should I be forced to maintain code by
people who
don't want to maintain it themselves?
Nobody is forcing you to do
Hi,
That's a bad thing we need to fix ASAP.
I think for 5.6.1 we'll revert it , if not, we'll need an RC2, which
is something we usually don't do (but as this could involve security,
we may do it).
The fix can be merged to 5.5.18RC1, next week, to have an RC cycle if
not part of a
79 matches
Mail list logo
