Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55600
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4E7C5A24.8080305@lerdorf.com>
References: <4E790B82.6090805@akbkhome.com>
	<8C.A0.17510.E4DE97E4@pb1.pair.com>
	<1316615094.2810.5.camel@guybrush>
	<CAEZPtU51Hk+kmLhNqnCjDbRuW2t7QUumQX2qotPKLbeJkD1rAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1316629502-sup-831@fewbar.com>
	<CAJW__o0WKqh0f71+r4m7ZMf2XhyJT3brs=9Phz=jFHtn=OQkaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110922134956.GA28577@panix.com>
	<CAJW__o0=-_BUaWMPw16vJPgeNFA86P=EQ1WWsH8kgmJWhGv42Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1316709104-sup-2744@fewbar.com>
	<1316713382.1290.60.camel@guybrush>
	<CAEZPtU7573By7tcdQB0CaWVZVULD1dxAH-qugFULSXzHwQT7yg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E7BBA23.2080001@lerdorf.com>
	<4E7BC6BF.6080702@akbkhome.com>
	<4E7C5A24.8080305@lerdorf.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:17:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4by7fnL7UrJNkH8+rUDyZjCEN_-72PXcPfpCSBt9skSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Alan Knowles <alan@akbkhome.com>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: is_a() - again - a better fix
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi Rasmus,

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote=
:

> 1. Should we work up a basic PEAR test case that we can add to our
> =A0 tests?
>
> 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP
> =A0 frameworks and apps test every RC. Currently we notify them of RCs
> =A0 and just hope someone will test and report back, but that obviously
> =A0 isn't working. We need a Daniel Brown-like approach to this. Someone
> =A0 who is really annoyingly persistent and will hunt down people to
> =A0 test RCs and keep a sign-off checklist of projects that have given
> =A0 a thumbs-up on an RC.

We do 2) already (while we are working on increasing the amount of
apps and frameworks being tested), as I was asking to revert this
patch between 5.3.7 and 5.3.8 back then pointing to our tests results
and numerous reports. The problem was not in the QA but in the
decision process. QA should have a kind of veto power in this case to
avoid arguing and still have BC breaks landing in stable releases.

> Oh, and what do we do in 5.4? Philosophically I think Dmitry's original
> change was correct, but none of us realized all the code relying
> (arguably incorrectly) on the original behaviour.

It is not an easy decision, I would prefer to revert it there too as
it will break BC in 5.4 as well, obviously.

Cheers,
--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org