Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Packaged!

2001-06-22 Thread Wico de Leeuw
At 19:28 21-6-2001 +0200, Sascha Schumann wrote: On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Wico de Leeuw wrote: Hiya i get this error when doing make under apache 1.3.20 A more interesting info would be the output of gcc -v. this error is for php-4.0.5 and php-4.0.6 for apache 1.3.17 and 1.3.20 php

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Packaged!

2001-06-22 Thread Sascha Schumann
[root@linux php-4.0.5]# gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnu/pgcc-2.95.2.1/specs gcc version pgcc-2.95.2.1 20001224 (release) `pgcc´ is an experimental compiler. Such issues are to be expected with this kind of software. For a production system, I'd

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Packaged!

2001-06-21 Thread Wico de Leeuw
Hiya i get this error when doing make under apache 1.3.20 gcc -c -I../../os/unix -I../../include -DLINUX=22 -I/home/src/wico/php-4.0.6 -I/home/src/wico/php-4.0.6/main -I/home/src/wico/php-4.0.6/main -I/home/src/wico/php-4.0.6/Zend -I/home/src/wico/php-4.0.6/Zend

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Packaged!

2001-06-21 Thread Sascha Schumann
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Wico de Leeuw wrote: Hiya i get this error when doing make under apache 1.3.20 A more interesting info would be the output of gcc -v. - Sascha Experience IRCG http://schumann.cx/http://schumann.cx/ircg

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

2001-05-03 Thread Richard Lynch
The question is, if you think people will actually download the RC in order to test it (as opposed to using it) - why won't they join the QA team? Because they have enough time to make sure their software still works with the RC, but not enough time to wade through all the QA emails. :-) Most

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-03 Thread Richard Lynch
] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:16 PM Subject: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Andi wrote: [snip] That was really a big disappointment as people did such a good job on the release cycle IMO. No doubt it shouldn't have slipped in. And if it doesn't get fixed soon we should revert

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Zeev Suraski
At 15:18 2/5/2001, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: Andi Gutmans wrote: I think we should make a list of known 4.0.5 bugs which need to be fixed for 4.0.6 and once we fix them branch 4.0.6. I think there have been enough changes to warrant a 4.0.6 release soon. and i would suggest to announce the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 04:02 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: At 15:18 2/5/2001, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: Andi Gutmans wrote: I think we should make a list of known 4.0.5 bugs which need to be fixed for 4.0.6 and once we fix them branch 4.0.6. I think there have been enough changes to warrant a 4.0.6

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Zeev Suraski
At 16:02 2/5/2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: I disagree. We are not getting enough testing of our RCs. I think if we announce an RC and we tell people they are just helping us test the pre-release it's OK. It's not as if they can't grab a snapshot. People usually tend to deal with pre-release or

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 04:15 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: At 16:02 2/5/2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: I disagree. We are not getting enough testing of our RCs. I think if we announce an RC and we tell people they are just helping us test the pre-release it's OK. It's not as if they can't grab a snapshot.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Zeev Suraski
I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer resources to fix bugs. I truly think that making RCs effective releases gains nothing. If everyone else thinks differently, so be it. Zeev At 16:08

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Sascha Schumann
What I'm trying to say is that if we make that jump from a QA team to the entire world, then essentially, we go a step backwards. I think that the way things are today is good, and most of the bugs which aren't found can only be found in wide scale testing, but I don't think that announcing

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 04:22 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer resources to fix bugs. I truly think that making RCs effective releases gains nothing. If everyone else

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Adam Trachtenberg
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: The COM problem would have been found IMO if we had released a bigger RC. I think the COM problem would have been found if somebody ran the test suite immediately before releasing 4.0.5 final. I think modifying the RC process to ensure that the last

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 09:39 AM 5/2/2001 -0400, Adam Trachtenberg wrote: On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: The COM problem would have been found IMO if we had released a bigger RC. I think the COM problem would have been found if somebody ran the test suite immediately before releasing 4.0.5 final. I think

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Jani Taskinen
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: At 04:22 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer resources to fix bugs. I truly think that making RCs effective

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 03:51 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote: On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: At 04:22 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer resources to

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Zeev Suraski
We're going to have a Windows build machine at Zend, that will have automated builds (it's actually quite around the corner now). Once it's ready, we're going to have daily snapshots as well as RC builds all the time. Zeev At 16:51 2/5/2001, Jani Taskinen wrote: On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Jani Taskinen
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: Or are there binaries build for Winblows of each RC ? Another thing would be great, is that the snapshots of CVS were also found as binaries for Windoze. Yes, that would definitely be nice and it used to exist on php4win.de. Hopefully when the site

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

2001-05-02 Thread Sascha Schumann
As I said, I don't think it's a big deal, but I think it will only have slight negative impact, and even slighter positive impact. I believe that people who are willing to download RC's and test them as such (i.e., send detailed and informative bug reports, or even positive summaries) would

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 04:07 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote: On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: Or are there binaries build for Winblows of each RC ? Another thing would be great, is that the snapshots of CVS were also found as binaries for Windoze. Yes, that would definitely be nice and it used

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

2001-05-02 Thread Zeev Suraski
The question is, if you think people will actually download the RC in order to test it (as opposed to using it) - why won't they join the QA team? At 17:11 2/5/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote: As I said, I don't think it's a big deal, but I think it will only have slight negative impact, and

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Zeev Suraski
At 17:07 2/5/2001, Jani Taskinen wrote: On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: Yes, that would definitely be nice and it used to exist on php4win.de. Hopefully when the site returns it'll start happening again. Excuse me my stupidity, but why should it be their job to deliver these? IMO we

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

2001-05-02 Thread Sascha Schumann
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: The question is, if you think people will actually download the RC in order to test it (as opposed to using it) - why won't they join the QA team? Their job description might list test new software releases before putting them into production,

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

2001-05-02 Thread Zeev Suraski
At 17:29 2/5/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote: On Wed, 2 May 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: The question is, if you think people will actually download the RC in order to test it (as opposed to using it) - why won't they join the QA team? Their job description might list test new software

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

2001-05-02 Thread Sascha Schumann
Their job description might list test new software releases before putting them into production, and not join the PHP QA team. Testing new software releases before putting them into production is pretty much a one sentence description of what 'Quality Assurance' is. The

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Wez Furlong
On 2001-05-02 15:03:50, Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're going to have a Windows build machine at Zend, that will have automated builds (it's actually quite around the corner now). Once it's ready, we're going to have daily snapshots as well as RC builds all the time. That's good

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Wez Furlong
On 2001-05-02 14:51:53, Jani Taskinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That COM problem is Win32 specific. And as Microsoft in it's great wisdom has decided not to include any compilers in their OSs, the lack of binary builds for RCs kinda makes it a bit hard for those who would like to to test to

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 05:34 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I don't seem to recall Linux publishing far-reaching announcements about -pre versions. If you walked around the development mailing lists or the behind-the-scene web sites, you could hear about it, much like you can with PHP today. Linux

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

2001-05-02 Thread derick
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: At 17:29 2/5/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote: On Wed, 2 May 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: Their job description might list test new software releases before putting them into production, and not join the PHP QA team. Testing new software

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 03:38 PM 5/2/2001 +0100, Wez Furlong wrote: On 2001-05-02 14:51:53, Jani Taskinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That COM problem is Win32 specific. And as Microsoft in it's great wisdom has decided not to include any compilers in their OSs, the lack of binary builds for RCs kinda makes it a

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

2001-05-02 Thread Zeev Suraski
Okay guys, do whatever you want. Most people seem to agree with you. Zeev At 17:42 2/5/2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: At 05:34 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I don't seem to recall Linux publishing far-reaching announcements about -pre versions. If you walked around the development

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

2001-05-02 Thread Sascha Schumann
I would rather describe QA as Making sure the release does have as least bugs as possible. IMO this is different then just testing RC's. I think a QA team should be the team who says Yes, release it or No, there are still some bugs left we want to fix. Of course, in order to do this, they

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

2001-05-02 Thread Hartmut Holzgraefe
Zeev Suraski wrote: Testing new software releases before putting them into production is pretty much a one sentence description of what 'Quality Assurance' is. that's QA for their products usually and not so much for 3rd party components I don't seem to recall Linux publishing far-reaching

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Wez Furlong
On 2001-05-02 15:43:57, Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:38 PM 5/2/2001 +0100, Wez Furlong wrote: Seriously though, win32 is particular hard to do automated testing. Maybe we could use cygwin for running the test-suite under win32 and at least be able to use standard *nix tools?

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Liz
On 2001-05-02 15:03:50, Zeev Suraski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're going to have a Windows build machine at Zend, that will have automated builds (it's actually quite around the corner now). Once it's ready, we're going to have daily snapshots as well as RC builds all the time.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Matt White
Wez; Is there another test suite other than the run-test.php script? (Which does run on Win32: TEST RESULT SUMMARY = Number of tests: 165 Tests skipped: 66 ( 40%) Tests failed: 22 ( 22%) Tests passed: 77 ( 78%) =

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Eduardo Dominguez
That COM problem is Win32 specific. And as Microsoft in it's great wisdom has decided not to include any compilers in their OSs, the lack of binary builds for RCs kinda makes it a bit hard for those who would like to to test to actually test. Can anyone make it easy to (via a good tutorial or

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Eduardo Dominguez
That COM problem is Win32 specific. And as Microsoft in it's great wisdom has decided not to include any compilers in their OSs, the lack of binary builds for RCs kinda makes it a bit hard for those who would like to to test to actually test. Can anyone make it easy to (via a good tutorial or

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Alexander Feldman
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Eduardo Dominguez wrote: That COM problem is Win32 specific. And as Microsoft in it's great wisdom has decided not to include any compilers in their OSs, the lack of binary builds for RCs kinda makes it a bit hard for those who would like to to test to actually test.

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread James Moore
At 04:22 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer resources to fix bugs. I truly think that making RCs effective releases gains nothing. If everyone

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread James Moore
Seriously though, win32 is particular hard to do automated testing. Maybe we could use cygwin for running the test-suite under win32 and at least be able to use standard *nix tools? It already does run under windows. - James -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Hartmut Holzgraefe
James Moore wrote: If we announce PHP 4.0.6RC1 in X places then people will think oh 4.0.6 is released (remeber PHP users are incapable of reading anything more than about 10 words) lets use that; they then wont bother upgrading when the real 4.0.6 is released. This means we will start to

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 08:36 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: James Moore wrote: If we announce PHP 4.0.6RC1 in X places then people will think oh 4.0.6 is released (remeber PHP users are incapable of reading anything more than about 10 words) lets use that; they then wont bother upgrading when

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Phil Driscoll
I think the key thing with RCs was touched on by James - we need to be complete bastards as to what's allowed in after RC1 otherwise every RC is really RC1, however human nature and available time means RCN (where N1) gets less testing than RC1. Can we set karma levels on the RC branch such that

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Hartmut Holzgraefe
Matt McClanahan wrote: I don't see inviting this wider audience as providing enough beneficial information to justify the work of clearing away the less useful reports. right now we invite this wider audience the day we release a 'release' and again and again we end up with a .pl1 i just

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 01:16 PM 5/2/2001 -0600, Zak Greant wrote: Andi wrote: [snip] That was really a big disappointment as people did such a good job on the release cycle IMO. No doubt it shouldn't have slipped in. And if it doesn't get fixed soon we should revert to the old version of the COM module.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Matt McClanahan
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 09:03:00PM +0200, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: Matt McClanahan wrote: I don't see inviting this wider audience as providing enough beneficial information to justify the work of clearing away the less useful reports. right now we invite this wider audience the day

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
How about we stop this thread and invest all of this time in going over the bugs database and fixing bugs? :) We do spend too much time typing and not enough time resolving bugs... (me included sometimes). I think although not everyone agrees we do have more or less a concensus on: a) Being

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Daniel Beulshausen
At 19:54 02.05.2001 +0100, Phil Driscoll wrote: Also for Windows testing it would help if someone who understands the test system posts a step by step hand holding list of things to do to make it work on Windows - it will then get used much more. you can now (start the tests|look at test

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Zak Greant
Andi wrote: At 01:16 PM 5/2/2001 -0600, Zak Greant wrote: [snip] I don't think it's too realistic :) I prefer having the php-general guys test it on their development machine's. Perhaps we should just encourage the brave and foolhardy to run it on a production machines. :) --zak

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Zeev Suraski
At 22:38 2/5/2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: How about we stop this thread and invest all of this time in going over the bugs database and fixing bugs? :) I'll drink to that :) -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands,

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Zeev Suraski
I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if between the last PRC and the final release code got changed. James put what I thought in clearer words (and with much more passion :), I agree with every

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Lars Westermann
On 2 May 2001 06:20:41 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zeev Suraski) wrote: I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer resources to fix bugs. I have tried to report bugs - even fixed 3 in the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Daniel Beulshausen
At 22:46 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if between the last PRC and the final release code got changed. the com support is/was broken for 6 weeks...

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 10:46 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if between the last PRC and the final release code got changed. James put what I thought in clearer words

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 09:52 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Daniel Beulshausen wrote: At 22:46 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if between the last PRC and the final release code got

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Zeev Suraski
At 22:52 2/5/2001, Daniel Beulshausen wrote: At 22:46 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if between the last PRC and the final release code got changed.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Daniel Beulshausen
At 22:57 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: At 22:52 2/5/2001, Daniel Beulshausen wrote: At 22:46 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if between the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
At 10:57 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: At 22:52 2/5/2001, Daniel Beulshausen wrote: At 22:46 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if between the

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Andi Gutmans
I suggest the following. Create one nice big diff with all of your fixes. Mail it to the extension maintainers for double checking with cc: to php-dev. If they don't reply in a reasonable time I'll apply the patch and assume you know what you're doing :) Andi At 09:53 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Lars

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Wez Furlong
Wez Furlong [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/02/01 12:02PM get bash, sed, perl, awk and all those unix tools. I'm suggesting that perhaps the test suite could be run using those tools on a win32 platform. On 2001-05-02 18:09:07, Matt White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there another test suite other

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Liz
the com support is/was broken for 6 weeks... So the bug is not related to the big patch from phanto from a week ago? Well, I have a server with 4.0.4RC6 and all is happy.. so it was deffinately fine then! I didnt upgrade it to as I wasnt able (its actually a kinda live server but its not

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Lars Westermann
On 2 May 2001 13:08:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Gutmans) wrote: I suggest the following. Create one nice big diff with all of your fixes. Mail it to the extension maintainers for double checking with cc: to php-dev. If they don't reply in a reasonable time I'll apply the patch and

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

2001-05-02 Thread Felix Kronlage
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 01:40:28PM -0600, Zak Greant wrote: Perhaps we should just encourage the brave and foolhardy to run it on a production machines. :) s/brave/mad/. That's what I have a test-machine for which runs RC's with apps used on our main-site being hit by scripts. True, it