Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:54097 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68970 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2011 23:12:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Jul 2011 23:12:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.113 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.113 smtp113.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.113] ([67.192.241.113:53597] helo=smtp113.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C4/C2-48320-87F062E4 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:12:57 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp11.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5F34CD05E3; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:12:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp11.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id E5517D0549; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E260F75.7080607@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:12:53 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ilia Alshanetsky CC: PHP Internals References: <4E22A697.2020900@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote results From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! On 7/19/11 3:40 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > Stas, > > On the "Remove magic quotes" there seems to be an overwhelming support > from PHP Core and the community for removing it. Any reason there is > no definitive decision on the topic? I think there is, but I wanted to hear people that objected in case we missed some important BC issue that would kill it. So far I heard some concerns about the defaults and a concern about security impact on applications, which is valid but I think we've waited long enough and waiting more wouldn't add anything at this point. Anybody who listens doesn't rely on MQ, anybody who doesn't wouldn't listen in 10 years. So I don't see any reason not to remove it. The question here may be about the warnings, etc. My position is - warning on set(true), warning on INI value if practical (I'm not really sure I want to keep the value in config struct just for that). -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227