Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60806 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 4056 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2012 18:14:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Jun 2012 18:14:06 -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 67.192.241.163 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.163 smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.163] ([67.192.241.163:46296] helo=smtp163.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FB/71-18025-EE687DF4 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:14:06 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7C9D1270998; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:14:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp6.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id E39272705E4; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FD786EA.7040401@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:14:02 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: Anthony Ferrara , David Soria Parra , Derick Rethans , "internals@lists.php.net" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PBKDF2 addition to OpenSSL - Why Not Hash? From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > That being said, I am really not in favor of having it yet in 5.4. For > two reasons, first 5.4 is bugs fixes only, no new feature. The second I disagree. I've always stated small, self-contained features that do not involve infrastructure changes may be OK, and the RFC explicitly says so too. If this particular feature is not having consensus, fine, let's revert it, but in general saying "5.4 is bug fixes ONLY" is not correct, self-contained function additions, especially ones that have good usage potential, may be also approved. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227