Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119503 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26173 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2023 12:38:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2023 12:38:06 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C084F180340 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 04:38:05 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wr1-f47.google.com (mail-wr1-f47.google.com [209.85.221.47]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 04:38:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-f47.google.com with SMTP id d14so1600718wrr.9 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2023 04:38:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/ra3d3JhDoWOz2x+qN7/ryChmuuStZTrKSVn+8DW4QQ=; b=kpmuq04Fso3eL+HNxWVIRBgwDmnwT8DxXrBaAbo7r6K4OsFoOpZKExw/paCYoksfsL U+IUHtaUZcfXeWDnNvsRKfjRXXIqBQPjLnLvJJF/4Eb/pWH/DvrnGDAS7CUC02C7iD/u aCV/602/lHy5np6jurUPUZpcPE26IllpFsr+hsaDaRCJjVQJBbBBdgB+01lPiLxq8ukB BlHAk3GEBTKQu+b6c7yUzfsLEFe29BtvidHw3gh1ORdwZzMrchfV/NycI5DuXF1TEayc LdRHKEIsFeDJfbJSUa2gJIi+4QfcKThQEGa6fmcoFYKrFqzSjC7pz8kDob0wxteDV1O5 KlVw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/ra3d3JhDoWOz2x+qN7/ryChmuuStZTrKSVn+8DW4QQ=; b=yK+lMpAjDxo0saVrYkBLiiBJlj7m921SM3fj2oHEJt4JENfRgrpy4lCkP40bgtHbAw Klruca+OsqUTAtogns2nRK7U4joaUjkwvUAM+Og04+CMgBv/uZ7U/ZAGv5ZdTzzRNOat p4/JGqeWMiYWse3PbwjQuFQmi2hCLxhj4QnjGn76pNubGIKvWANAkE352xE25y0F7ebY mQwgz3FGB3TjxuD5hhoQRs91iclhFMkX0bdzVSictF+KWa0M6XUBnFpiA1IK3+cNQJmR eBQc2Xn6IACxIsnjbnFuoQ4ZDw/ai3jsf9qyQqrnG5VUEKGBRIrbew0aNT1ateiHpypM LUdA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKV4z2lU6Q+pytCJNiCXyA2PNEUQ/UiSJxY1sPS4Vwh2kV0kCuKy 52PvuldZyhXFhmYlpk1veSM52BDTK/x7chQkO6tzG98f X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+gGSP9o905PCTKUGJ9ryheaIKu9PyIFV6dAFy1y3qLUMLDMWD02JxaRhRLG3/59dIpuLGsU5hLakivhR7bsvQ= X-Received: by 2002:adf:fc02:0:b0:2c3:e728:b936 with SMTP id i2-20020adffc02000000b002c3e728b936mr344754wrr.236.1675946284040; Thu, 09 Feb 2023 04:38:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 12:37:52 +0000 Message-ID: To: internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ec445705f443a6d7" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] How to deal with bugs in vendored libraries? From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) --000000000000ec445705f443a6d7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 10:19, Max Kellermann wrote: > Hi, > > what happens if there is a bug in a vendored library, but upstream > refuses to fix it? > I don't have an answer to the procedural question, or the specific technical issue, but I would like to say three things: Firstly, let's try to keep this discussion civil, and assume good faith on both sides. Parts of your e-mail read like accusations of bad behaviour, rather than genuinely trying to understand what happened, and how we can collectively avoid it happening in future. Secondly, note that Derick Rethans is the maintainer of both timelib and the ext/date extension in php-src. So while we can discuss the hypothetical question of how to handle a disagreement between php-src and upstream library maintainers, it wouldn't apply in this case anyway, because it would require Derick to disagree with himself. Thirdly, it's not clear to me which of the following statements is true of this change, and it might help the conversation to clarify more precisely: a) The code you removed *violates* the C99 spec? b) The code you removed is *guaranteed to be pointless* under the C99 spec (but does not violate it)? c) The code you removed is *pointless in this particular case* because of a combination of the C99 spec and other factors (but might be reasonable in other circumstances)? Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] --000000000000ec445705f443a6d7--