On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Kris,
>
> > As discussed on other threads, PHPP files that are called directly from
> the
> > webserver are handled by the SAPI handler and thus don't need any special
> > identification.
>
> Except that they do. Right now, SAPI handlers
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Kris,
>
> > You do realize you just proved my point, right? I said that, because
> only a
> > small few people were actually participating in this thread, it would be
> > completely disingenuous for one side or the other to claim to repres
proposes creating a new file extension convention; therefore,
it proposes to eliminate SAPI handlers.
4. You should rewrite the RFC to say that you want to eliminate SAPI
handlers so that it will match my characterization of it.
5. Until you rewrite your RFC to match my criticisms, I
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Kris,
>
> > It's worth noting that there are already two other similar RFCs that have
> > been proposed and other people have expressed interest in this idea.
> Most
> > of the opposition on this thread has come from 2 people, one of whom
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> Please review these things, *then *post a response. Thank you.
>>
> If you want this SO badly, just fork a copy of PHP and implement it how
> you want it. That is at least the good thing to com
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Sherif Ramadan wrote:
> Let me say that I've been following this thread for some time now and what
> I'm
> seeing is a lot of poorly communicated ideas with very little thought
> and a lot of
> snappy retort.
>
> > We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Just b
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM, John Crenshaw wrote:
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:39 PM
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM, John Crenshaw <
> johncrens...@priacta.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On top of this, there's an argument that you're not addressing:
> most
> > > > > template engin
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> > From: Arvids Godjuks
> > To: Kris Craig
> > Cc: PHP internals list , Yasuo Ohgaki <
> yohg...@ohgaki.net>
> > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:26:16 +0300
> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] New .php
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/open-source-security/study-warns-of-security-flaws-in-open-source-components.html
This is EXACTLY why the prevailing mindset about central repositories needs
to change! Keeping it at PHP 5.1 doesn't provide more "stable" and
"reliable" code. It just keeps it vulne
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <
weierophin...@php.net> wrote:
> On 2012-04-13, Kris Craig wrote:
> > --f46d04447f47ae95ec04bd949e5f
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM, John
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM, John Crenshaw wrote:
> > >
> > > On top of this, there's an argument that you're not addressing: most
> > > template engines in PHP either directly consume PHP template files...
> > > or "compile" templates into... PHP template files. As such, sooner or
> > > late
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Matthew Weier O'Phinney <
weierophin...@php.net> wrote:
> On 2012-04-13, Kris Craig wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM, John LeSueur
> wrote:
> > > //a controller, maybe a class, maybe just a set of functions, but in a
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:45 AM, John LeSueur wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM, John LeSueur wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
&g
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> Kris.
>
> I can give you a real world example where that straight MVC with the. pphp
> if not breaks, then definetly becomes an ugly mess.
> I use Yii framework as my tool, it has some very nice tools for templating
> like widgets. Widgets p
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:37 PM, David Muir wrote:
> On 13/04/12 15:13, Kris Craig wrote:
> > Again, the controller should NOT be a .phpp file. Likewise, your model
> > should NOT be hooking directly to the view. The controller hooks to the
> > model. The controller th
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM, John LeSueur wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, John LeSueur wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Kris Craig
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:35 PM, David Muir wrote:
> On 13/04/12 11:03, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:46 PM, David Muir wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/12 10:04, Kris Craig wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Dav
have configured php only with IIS and Apache (any
> *nix expirience?). Try nginx, see for yourself how different it is.
>
You are aware that Apache runs on both Windows and Linux, right? It's the
"A" in "LAMP", after all. ;P
> 13.04.2012 3:05 пользователь "Kris C
ent for th include modification with the second
> optional param are on the right track - you give the people the ability and
> they will use it (i will).
>
> If someone could take all the energy wasted here and put to work on
> drasticly improving PDO - that would be a real benifit t
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> I will not write something like that any more, but you should understand
> that Criss is writing to the list tons of e-mails and his attitude to other
> people ideas and arguments is getting on people nerves. Remember thecphrase
> from the M
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If we aren't going to consider saving current code risk, then
> we could use both new include and file name convention.
>
> Introduce application/x-httpd-php-script, then we could
>
> AddHandler php5-script .php
> AddType text/html .p
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:46 PM, David Muir wrote:
> On 13/04/12 10:04, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, David Muir wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/12 09:38, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > 2012/4/13 Kris Craig :
>
technical details since 6.0 won't be coming for at least another few years.
--Kris
13.04.2012 2:01 пользователь "Kris Craig" написал:
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Arvids Godjuks > > wrote:
>>
>>> So ok, i write my code in files with
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> You all know where the short_tags, register_globals, magic_quotes and other
> stuff like that took the language and the problems it made.
> Doesn`t history teach us a lesson? I see that it did not for some active
> members of this list.
> Ma
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, David Muir wrote:
> On 13/04/12 09:38, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2012/4/13 Kris Craig :
> >> Per recent discussions, I have drafted an RFC for this. This proposal
> >> offers what I believe to be a more sane an
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
> So ok, i write my code in files without extension, what happens?
>
> As it was said before, interpreter will not distinguish by the file
> extension, ever. It is os dependant and so on.
>
> Why are you poluting the mailing list with things t
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/4/13 Kris Craig :
> > Per recent discussions, I have drafted an RFC for this. This proposal
> > offers what I believe to be a more sane and realistic approach to
> > addressing the question of incor
Per recent discussions, I have drafted an RFC for this. This proposal
offers what I believe to be a more sane and realistic approach to
addressing the question of incorporating a new breed of tag-less PHP
scripts.
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/phpp
--Kris
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/4/12 Chris Stockton :
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Kris Craig
> wrote:
> >> I can't help but question whether we should even be worrying about
> LFI/RFI
econciled. Perhaps this point will just have to be settled when the rfc is
> voted on.
>
Indeed. Looks like I'll just have to draft an RFC of my own then. So now
that will make 3 competing RFCs on this subject *grumble*
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 11, 2012, at 1:1
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:38 AM, John Crenshaw wrote:
> From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:ras...@lerdorf.com]
> > I guess he is saying that it prevents:
> >
> >Random bytes
> >
> >More random bytes
> >
> > Where random bytes might be an image file so finfo_file() might identify
> it as a v
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 08:12 AM, Luke Scott wrote:
> > Tom has a "similar" RFC that has two modes:
> >
> > - Template mode - how it is now
> > - Code (or pure code) mode - > optional. ?> is disallowed.
> >
> > Tom's RFC calls for template mode to r
Pierre,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> Kris,
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
> > Given the number of RCs we've seen in the past, I remain skeptical that
> > your approach will prove sustainable. But I'd say le
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi Kris,
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
> > I must've missed that part. Who was it that said this would be a
> separate
> > forked project? If so, then yeah obviously it'
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Well, technically it's discussion /and/ vote. I know we've been wanting
> > to get out of the habit of "push first, ask later," which is precisely
> > what RFC helps us avoid. Personally, I think any commits for a
>
> Nobody's pu
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> > This shouldn't be used to load libraries that dump raw HTML output! That
> > literally defeats the entire purpose. You're also assuming that all PHP
> &
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > Much better, though I'm still very troubled by allowing non-pure PHP
> code to
> > be mixed-in with pure PHP (by means of includes). The
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Err isn't this something that should go through the RFC process first?
> > I think it's a good idea and I'll probably vote for it, but as I
> > understand the RFC process was created specifically for stuff like this.
>
> One doesn't
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Currently the empty() language construct only works on variables. You
> > can write if (empty($array)) but not empty if (empty(getSomeArray()).
> >
> > The original reason for this restriction probably is that - in a way -
> > it "d
Tom,
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> Please see:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/source_files_without_opening_tag
>
> After following the discussion I have updated the RFC with the
> following major changes:
>
> * Forbade the use of ?> entirely in "pure PHP" files (without
> r
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Jelle Zijlstra wrote:
> 2012/4/10 Nikita Popov
>
> > Hey internals!
> >
> > Currently the empty() language construct only works on variables. You
> > can write if (empty($array)) but not empty if (empty(getSomeArray()).
> >
> > The original reason for this restric
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I think my main point still stands: if the git emails are too obscure to
> > follow, let us know what goes in via email to internals.
> >
> > Do you want to bring the NEWS updating process into this discussion?
>
> Sure, though that
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Ralf Lang wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> > It always amuses me when PERL developers go on their little
> > soapboxes about how "real" programmers all think PHP is stupid
> > lol.
>
> It always amuses me PHP people think perl is stupi
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > today I read this post, I think that some points are valid, follow the
> link for
> > you guys
> >
>
> Could you name a few and explain why you think they are valid and what
> you propose to do to fix them? This article is huge and
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Luke Scott wrote:
> On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:03 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
>
> > I strongly discourage settingallow_url_include=on, too.
>
> Good.
>
> > Enabling it only when it is needed is okay.
>
> No it's not. There is no reason to do so other than backwards
> comp
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> 2012/4/10 Kris Craig :
> > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Luke Scott wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/9/12 5:02 PM, "Kris Craig" wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Tom Boutell wro
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Luke Scott wrote:
> On 4/9/12 5:02 PM, "Kris Craig" wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> >
> >> Let me be very clear about that... I am NOT proposing that >> the top be mandatory in
ctly as it is now: allowed.
> >>>Text betweeen ?>... >>> */
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> require "/path/to/anotherfile.php", INCLUDE_TEMPLATE; // As it is now
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>>
t;
>
> That way I can ensure pure code is being inserted and no warnings are
> thrown if the file doesn't exist (class undefined will be thrown anyway).
>
> I think it's important to make existing or third party libraries that you can't modify. At l
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Luke Scott wrote:
> > Obviously, it would need to be at the top of the PHP file (whitespace
> > notwithstanding). Since we don't want any BC breaks, we at very least
> need
> > it to start with " wasn't
> > mean to be parsed. So how about we keep it simple and ju
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > release candidates. I mean, we're still planning on having multiple
> > release candidates before an actual release, right? If so, then
>
> Not if we can avoid it. If we don't have critical bugs in RC1, we
> release it.
>
> > obvio
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Kiall Mac Innes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>>
>> What I'm referring to is the same kind of bugfixes/etc that go into new
>> release candidates. I mean, we're still planning on having multiple
ronic
> suggestion (:
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> >>
> >> As others explained before the RFC was drafted, file extensions should
> >> not be directly respecte
Stas,
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > version of a "Release-x.xx" branch. I would suggest allowing commits on
> > that branch, but *only* if they're bugfixes or minor housekeeping. Each
>
> I don't want to do this, because this would very quickly lead us back to
t's
> another thread.
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Rick WIdmer
> wrote:
> > On 4/9/2012 2:41 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Honestly, I would suggest just getting rid of "Option 1" altogether. It
> >> would
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Rick WIdmer wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 2:41 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>>
>>> Honestly, I would suggest just getting rid of "Option 1" altogether. It
>> would end up over-complicating this to such a degree that any usefulness
>&
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Kiall Mac Innes wrote:
> This is a very similar process to what OpenStack uses, it seems to work
> well for them.
>
> They have a few guys on freenode in #openstack-infra that have shown
> themselves more than willing to go into detail about their setup and its
> p
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi!
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> > I agree, which is why the rfc does not call for a php.ini option.
>
> Can we kill this thread and focus only on the RFC one please? Thanks.
>
>
+1
We've got 2 active threads disc
Tom,
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> 2012/4/10 Stas Malyshev :
> > Hi!
> >
> >>> I'm not sure I follow - which PHP vulnerability you are talking about?
> >>
> >> Local file includes. (LFI)
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand - where's the vulnerability?
> >
> >> The
Tom,
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Tom Boutell wrote:
> Thanks. However, would you please fix the summary on the RFC's page to
> match the summary in the actual RFC? As you have written it, it
> implies that support for not the case.
>
> As for adding a boolean parameter to the require keywor
As far as I know, you've already met that req by posting the RFC here, so
go ahead and add it. In the future, remember there's also an "In Draft"
status for RFCs that haven't been announced here yet. :)
On Apr 8, 2012 9:32 AM, "Tom Boutell" wrote:
> I have written an RFC proposing backwards-com
While anything even resembling censorship naturally makes me cringe, it is
a reasonable expectation I think that this list be a place where people can
suggest ideas without being called "stupid" and childishly berated.
Bullying, it could be argued, is also a form of censorship.
So despite my insti
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Xinchen Hui wrote:
> -_#...
> Nice play ,Moriyoshi sama!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> 在 2012-4-1，11:03，Rasmus Lerdorf 写道：
>
> > On Mar 31, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Moriyoshi Koizumi wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, I'll try to fix that part. Thanks for the correction.
>
> >
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2012/4/1 David Soria Parra :
> > On 2012-03-31, Thomas Hruska wrote:
> >> I've been writing software for Windows in Visual Studio since forever
> >> and also know user-land PHP like the back of my hand and, even after a
> >> few Googl
Pierre,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >> Why would these change every 2nd commit? These only should change when
> >> you change the scanner, which happens very rarely.
> >
> > It depends what you do, but still annoying when it happens.
> >
> > But that does not a
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alexey Shein wrote:
> 26 марта 2012 г. 4:30 пользователь Stas Malyshev
> написал:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> Main problem is that our current workflow doesn't allow branch-only
> >> changes. I.e. if you make a bugfix and want to stay it in PHP-5.3 only
> >> you can't merg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > There was a discussion recently on IRC that our current git working
> > process is not perfect (especially about keeping one branch-only
> > bugfixes) so that's a
>
> One thing with discussions on IRC is that nobody except those pre
Arpad,
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Arpad Ray wrote:
> Hi Kris,
>
> On 20 Mar 2012 23:29, "Kris Craig" wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> > >
> > >> But just because you and a few other stuffed shir
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>> The horse is already dead. Why are you still wacking it with a stick?
>>
>
> that was my first and only reply to you about this issue, and this will be
> my last one, I promise.
>
I was referring to you guys piling on as a group. Try n
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Stas Malyshev > >wrote:
>>
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > > Yeah I know. That doesn't me
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Yeah I know. That doesn't mean I have to like it though lol. ;P
>
> You may like it or not like it, but it's established terminology so
> we're going to use it. Let's not add noise to our lists.
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Softwar
-requests/
>
> Hugo Peixoto
> --
>
> website: http://hugopeixoto.net
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM, David Soria Parra
>> wrote:
>>
>> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> >
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM, David Soria Parra wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/20/2012 06:29 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> > Quick clarification: On the other hand, by "pull request" are you
> > simply referring to somebody els
Quick clarification:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Paul Dragoonis wrote:
> thanks dsp and johannes for this nice tool.
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:16 AM, David Soria Parra wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > with the php-src migrated to git we start receiving
> > pull request on github. A few things to
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
>
>> Specifically, I noticed the "SSH Key" field in user administration (is
>> that
>> new or was that always there?).
>
>
> https://wiki.php.net/vcs/gitfaq#using_ssh
>
> --
> Ferenc Kovács
> @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
>
Lol yep that's where
Question:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Jones <
> christopher.jo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 03/19/2012 01:31 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>>
>>> I added an entry
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Christopher Jones <
christopher.jo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/19/2012 01:31 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> Here's what I wound-up doing: The merge entries on the workflow page now
>> contain "--no-ff" and I added
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Jones <
christopher.jo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/19/2012 01:31 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> I added an entry to the FAQ about the merge.ff option
>> available in newer clients.
>>
>
> Would it be mor
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Simon Schick
wrote:
> 2012/3/19 Kris Craig :
> > Simon,
> >
> > Yes that's a great recommendation and it should definitely be included
> > IMHO! However, the merge.ff option is relatively new and is not
> available
> > in
FYI-
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, David Soria Parra wrote:
> Hi Internals,
>
> The initial migration is done and initial testing was successful.
>
> http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=summary
> http://github.com/php/php-src
>
> Please note that some branches and tags were renamed to make
Simon,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Simon Schick
wrote:
> 2012/3/19 Kris Craig :
> > Hey,
> >
> > Could we modify the workflow to recommend using the "--no-ff" switch when
> > merging in a feature branch? This is by and large the recommended
>
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Alexander Moskaliov wrote:
> Really it was a mistake to do this option recommended (I did it =)). But
> I think for webprojects and documentation will need to mention this option.
>
> With regards, Alexander Moskaliov
> ir...@irker.net
>
>
> 2012/3/19 Christopher
Hey Chris,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Christopher Jones <
christopher.jo...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/19/2012 11:34 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
> I noticed that the workflow page recommends using the SSH URL for cloning.
>> However, isn't that one muc
Me again,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> Also,
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, David Soria Parra wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Internals,
>>
Also,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> Hey,
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, David Soria Parra wrote:
>
>> Hi Internals,
>>
>> The initial migration is done and initial testing was successful.
>>
>> http://git.php.net/?
Hey,
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, David Soria Parra wrote:
> Hi Internals,
>
> The initial migration is done and initial testing was successful.
>
> http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=summary
> http://github.com/php/php-src
>
> Please note that some branches and tags were renamed to make
I'm curious: What would be the implications of having a third option to
display a generic "catch-all" error instead of a blank page? For example,
something like, "An error has occurred. Please check your server's error
log for details." That would significantly reduce the confusion factor for
i
Yes, IF you're using a proper branching model. If you're just using it the
same way you'd use Subversion, which currently is the direction we seem to
be moving in, those advantages are mostly negated.
I agree that PHP 5.5 (and maybe even 5.6, etc) should come before PHP 6.
That being said, at som
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> > Am 07.03.2012 19:46, schrieb Kris Craig:
> >> As I and others have said already, using a Subversion branching
> >> model
> >> on Git just doesn't make any sense.
> >
> > How often does it have to be explained to you and
I think waiting until PHP++ is probably the best approach. It would've
been nice to have the current libcurl version in 5.4.0, but since we're not
talking about any critical bug/security fixes, I don't think it's that big
a deal either way. So we may as well just sit on it for now.
--Kris
On S
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Kris Craig wrote:
>
>> I'll commit the changes to 5.4 at the earliest opportunity. I just
>> realized that the language was somewhat vague as to whether it should be
>> applied to 5.3 branch or not; I don'
e"
--Kris
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 07.03.2012 19:46, schrieb Kris Craig:
> > As I and others have said already, using a Subversion branching model
> > on Git just doesn't make any sense.
>
> How often does it have to be e
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Am 07.03.2012 11:05, schrieb Derick Rethans:
> >> "3. Do not top post. Place your answer underneath anyone you wish to
> >> quote and remove any previous comment that is not relevant to your
> >> post."
>
> Couldn't agree more, such quo
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:12 AM, David Soria Parra wrote:
> On 2012-03-07, Kris Craig wrote:
> > --f46d044304ec4e135704baa12342
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Kiall Mac Innes
> wrote:
> >
> >>
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Kiall Mac Innes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Drak wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > Forcing pushes to one's own topic branches in one's own fork can be
> > acceptable providing
> > upstream maintainers know before merging (for example squashing some work
> > af
y just go ahead and apply it to both unless anyone has any
objections.
Thanks!
--Kris
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Kris Craig wrote:
> FYI-
>
> Voting will be closed at 2 PM (PST) tomorrow.
>
> --Kris
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
>
e to add your ideas in this thread.
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/parameter_type_casting_hints
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_cast_to_types
> >
> > Bye
> > Simon
> >
> > 2012/3/6 Kris Craig
> >
> >> Wow no offense, but your timing is ter
Do we have any solid data on the performance difference between arithmetic
operations with bcmath and without? To me, that would be immensely helpful
in framing this. I like the idea, but the potential performance drag
concerns me. Knowing exactly how big a drag we're looking at would make it
ea
2012/3/6 Ángel González
> On 06/03/12 19:36, Kris Craig wrote:
>
>
>
> >> FIRST:
> >> do NOT top post after get a reply below your text
> >> or how do you imagine that anybody can follow a
> >> thread where answers randomly before and after
>
Responses inline per your request.
--Kris
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 06.03.2012 01:13, schrieb Kris Craig:
> > On Windows (where I generally do most of my scripting grunt work),
> > I typically use Notepad++ and it highlights
> > >
>
301 - 400 of 528 matches
Mail list logo
