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
[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
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
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
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
]
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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%)
=
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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...
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
