@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 typing
configure in shell, hitting enter
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 the
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
hi Ryan,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Ryan McCue li...@rotorised.com 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
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 Jan,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jan Ehrhardt php...@ehrhardt.nl 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
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 ;-)
On 1/29/13 5:08 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi Jan,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jan Ehrhardt php...@ehrhardt.nl 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
-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
php...@ehrhardt.nl wrote:
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27
+0100):
hi Larry,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Larry Garfield la...@garfieldtech.com wrote:
On 1/29/13 5:08 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
hi Jan,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jan Ehrhardt php...@ehrhardt.nl wrote:
Hi Pierre,
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Tue, 29 Jan 2013 05:55:27 +0100):
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
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Attila Bukor attila.bu...@gmail.com 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
-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
attila.bu...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Ralf Lang l...@b1-systems.de 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
attila.bu...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects
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
attila.bu...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of other projects use nightly
builds successfully. I
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
attila.bu...@gmail.com wrote:
I think Ralf's idea is great. A lot of
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
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:
-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)
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 and things out
-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 with
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Ralf Lang l...@b1-systems.de 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
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 already
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.)
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 dependencies
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 yeah insert
On Jan 30, 2013 1:30 AM, Jan Ehrhardt php...@ehrhardt.nl 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+
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:42:51 +0100):
On Jan 30, 2013 1:30 AM, Jan Ehrhardt php...@ehrhardt.nl 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
hi,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Jan Ehrhardt php...@ehrhardt.nl wrote:
Pierre Joye in php.internals (Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:42:51 +0100):
On Jan 30, 2013 1:30 AM, Jan Ehrhardt php...@ehrhardt.nl wrote:
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
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,
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 vote, when do we declare than a vote is
over? Is it in a specific point in
hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com 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
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
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 due to
hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com 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 who
-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 z...@zend.com wrote:
My suggestion
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com 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
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
On 28 January 2013 12:03, Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com 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
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
hi Clint, Zeev,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com 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
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 are
-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 one, was one of them asking to have a 2/3 majority for any
language related
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com 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
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 a good
On 1/28/2013 6:12 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
On 28 January 2013 12:03, Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com 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
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
-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 wrote:
On 28 January 2013 12:03
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,
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 6:22 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I agree, but we’re in opposite camps on this feature. What does that
mean? J
Go back to our roots? :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 28.01.2013 18:35, schrieb Pierre Joye:
On Jan 28, 2013 6:22 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com 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
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
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, it
2013/1/28 Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com
-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
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 spent
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,
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
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 anything,
; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting periods
On 1/28/2013 6:12 AM, Peter Cowburn wrote:
On 28 January 2013 12:03, Clint Priest cpri...@zerocue.com wrote:
If you're still worried about this making it in, don't worry. Nikita
and I have given up, to the determinant
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
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 exactly
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 because
hi Jan,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Jan Ehrhardt php...@ehrhardt.nl 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
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,
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
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
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
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 still
70 matches
Mail list logo
