Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:18875 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 40718 invoked by uid 1010); 14 Sep 2005 12:34:25 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 40703 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2005 12:34:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Sep 2005 12:34:25 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.94.239.5 jdi.jdi-ict.nl Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from ([82.94.239.5:35613] helo=jdi.jdi-ict.nl) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id C8/A2-41173-FC818234 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:34:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j8ECYG0n017270; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:34:16 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jdi.jdi-ict.nl (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j8ECYBUW017262; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:34:12 +0200 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:34:08 -0400 (EDT) X-X-Sender: derick@localhost To: Pierre Joye cc: Zeev Suraski , internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050912173631.07038640@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at jdi-ict.nl Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.0.5, BC break, fatal error From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Pierre Joye wrote: > On 9/12/05, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > I don't think you're going to get a very good answer here. It boils down > > to what you already know - it's a bug which results in corruption, and > > that's the only way to fix it. The common decision was that it's more > > important to fix this bug than to maintain compatibility, and this even > > resulted in a new PHP 'family' (4.4). It's one of those cases where > > there's no good solution, only a choice of bad solutions. > > 4.4.0, correct and I do accept that. but not in 5.0.5. Derick applied > the patch to 5.1 not to 5.0.5. We did agree to apply it there and not > in bug fix releases (and not in security release). Or can you point me > to the common decision? ;) I didn't even apply it to 5.1, otherwise it would have been a notice there too. Derick -- Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org