Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:57107 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 12603 invoked from network); 27 Dec 2011 08:12:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Dec 2011 08:12:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.183 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.183 smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.183] ([67.192.241.183:39273] helo=smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A7/60-08966-4ED79FE4 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:12:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp18.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2F5202681DE; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:12:18 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp18.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id DC5C72681C7; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:12:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4EF97DE0.3060906@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:12:16 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrick ALLAERT CC: Derick Rethans , PHP Developers Mailing List References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] REQUEST_TIME change in PHP 5.4 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > On one side there's a clear BC break which, according to the related > RFC, is to be considered as a blocker, on the other one, a strong and > valid argument regarding spreading additional server variables. > I'm not sure being late in the release process is truely a valid > argument for accepting a BC break. If we are to fix it, I don't think it's too late. One of the purposes of the RC process is to find out stuff like this - i.e. BC breaks - and fix them before the release. I do not see a big risk in adding new SERVER variable - I don't believe there's any code that relies on certain variable *not* existing, and since the code to produce it already exists and considered stable, there's very little risk in just renaming it. > Can't we make some compromise here like making all date/time > classes/functions work uniformly with ints and floats? However for this is probably way too late, since it's not a BC fix, it's completely new and untested functionality. So if somebody wants to make a patch that makes REQUEST_TIME be back as it was and make REQUEST_TIME_MSEC (or something like this) have msec precision - I think it would be fine. Doing anything to "all date/time classes/functions" is definitely out of the question, IMO. For 5.4.1, it may be considered if done in a clean manner, but not for 5.4.0. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227