Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:54867 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 4520 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2011 11:41:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Aug 2011 11:41:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 212.199.177.89 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.199.177.89 il-mr1.zend.com Received: from [212.199.177.89] ([212.199.177.89:54020] helo=il-mr1.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 56/0B-48631-253E45E4 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:41:06 -0400 Received: from il-gw1.zend.com (unknown [10.1.1.22]) by il-mr1.zend.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962E660746; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:39:51 +0300 (IDT) Received: from IL-EX2.zend.net ([fe80::6d27:be2c:57f3:272a]) by il-ex2.zend.net ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0255.000; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:40:18 +0300 To: Pierre Joye CC: "internals@lists.php.net" Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.3.8 Released! Thread-Index: AQHMYa7ZctuT+UGc90uFwsF80NSTy5UrDJAAgABg/QCAAB+qAIAAP6dQ///d6ICAADNWAA== Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:40:17 +0000 Message-ID: <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A495AAE17@il-ex2.zend.net> References: <1314115682.2635.98.camel@guybrush> <4E545A6C.60704@akbkhome.com> <4E54C658.6070209@akbkhome.com> <887FE7CFF6F8DE4BB3A9535F53AFD06A495AAA2F@il-ex2.zend.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [212.199.177.84] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.3.8 Released! From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) > No matter what it is or how it is defined by us, it breaks existing code = and that > should be avoided in bug fixes releases like 5.3.7/8. Pierre, This wholesale statement doesn't get us anywhere. Every bug fix can result= in breaking existing code. If due to a logic error, under some circumstan= ces - file_exists() returned false for a file that actually exists, are we = barred from fixing that in a maintenance release? Obviously not. What abo= ut bug # 54459? What if some piece of code out there relied on this behavi= or? What about # 55082 - what if someone already relied on this and wrote = a layer to alter the output accordingly? Since clearly the definition of never breaking existing code, no matter how= far-fetched it may be, means we can't do just about anything in bug fix re= leases - we need to set slightly more realistic definitions. The fix for i= s_a() falls squarely within the realm of stuff we should be doing in bug fi= x releases, IMHO. It is a bug fix, bug fixes by definition change behavior= - sometimes to the degree of breaking certain (broken) pieces of code.=20 Zeev =20