Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55725 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 6651 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2011 09:27:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Oct 2011 09:27:00 -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 207.97.245.183 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.97.245.183 smtp183.iad.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [207.97.245.183] ([207.97.245.183:42836] helo=smtp183.iad.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id B4/10-05936-3E5CE8E4 for ; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:26:59 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp48.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E5A4B168638; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 05:26:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp48.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 4BDF91685FA; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 05:26:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E8EC5DF.2030207@sugarcrm.com> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:26:55 +0200 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Daniel K." CC: "internals@lists.php.net" , Etienne Kneuss References: <4E7C764C.3000808@uw.no> <4E8DC9B4.7040809@uw.no> <4E8DCF7A.9050009@sugarcrm.com> <4E8DD05B.6060502@uw.no> In-Reply-To: <4E8DD05B.6060502@uw.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [PATCH] Fix for bug #55754 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! On 10/6/11 5:59 PM, Daniel K. wrote: > But what about 5.3? there is no ABI issue with this, just a spurious > warning that goes away. Yeah, I agree with Pierre - it's not a huge problem, and the risk is there, so I'd hold it for 5.3 as it is the stable version. When 5.4 gets tested enough that we're confident this fix is 100% fine, we may backport then maybe. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227