On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 23:24, Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
There seem to be a lot of unrelated code cleanup here, and I am in
general a bit confused in this code.
Could you review http://php.net/streamwrapper and write up the changes to
it?
There shouldn't be any changes
There seem to be a lot of unrelated code cleanup here, and I am in
general a bit confused in this code.
Could you review http://php.net/streamwrapper and write up the changes to it?
-Hannes
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 23:03, Stanislav Malyshev s...@php.net wrote:
stas
Hi!
There seem to be a lot of unrelated code cleanup here, and I am in
general a bit confused in this code.
Could you review http://php.net/streamwrapper and write up the changes to
it?
There shouldn't be any changes except for adding one stream handler (see
rfc:
hi,
Besides that, did we even approve that change? Gustavo and I were two
that did not like the current implemenation/design.
Cheers,
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
There seem to be a lot of unrelated code cleanup here, and I am in
general a
Hi!
Besides that, did we even approve that change? Gustavo and I were two
that did not like the current implemenation/design.
There were no objections and/or proposals for improving it since I
posted the patch, which as about 2 months ago, so I assumed it's ok. If
you have any specific
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Besides that, did we even approve that change? Gustavo and I were two
that did not like the current implemenation/design.
There were no objections and/or proposals for improving it since I posted
the patch,
Hi!
No time to actually proper design and propose alternatives yet. That
does mean we have to accept something just because it is ready.
Sorry
No, I think if we have working solution for a real problem, even if it's
not perfect - it is the reason to use it and I can vaguely imagine