Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60811
Return-Path: <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 37563 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2012 04:11:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 13 Jun 2012 04:11:58 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.170 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.161.170 mail-gg0-f170.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.161.170] ([209.85.161.170:52379] helo=mail-gg0-f170.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id CD/71-24588-B0318DF4 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:11:55 -0400
Received: by ggnf2 with SMTP id f2so106312ggn.29
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        bh=Bb/M65dJ9AaVbIkaCyi5EkULoPKzea2fm5x+lwZhZTw=;
        b=Y7L3dmmbLaqJvj7YQv4ywLbqTFYwqyKQOcR2uIB3qqMVI7gcNLbbx0QQAoqE7jDEEH
         GpUPZwFqFpTkSRO4gjFyo/gozDNVTzazuDJXqaXwSzSn2KcUY1M4f3xoXzSSOrEEwDG1
         nCg3CIcsGG5G59E1HzrTKnGHq0VyQPSgPyO5p9b/5fIbxfSMLay0Ffe50SG7fwGJnXOM
         MXgL/pHjWhNz51bfWykSa6mQlfcNRkq8vDk0XldKtCX0O+yXjWn3E6/E/8jxm8sDzTZE
         Skv7tK3shBIlDW0b8x7IHncYzOaD9/KioPXg6orEp9sg+wC7g3I0rbzrYc4Mal9mh7j0
         S3qw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.114.161 with SMTP id c21mr31652043yhh.51.1339560712825;
 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.147.113.7 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FD786EA.7040401@sugarcrm.com>
References: <CAAyV7nHrmZWXUGnzog44kba35Fap38jaCptecRFjessWFHu74w@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1206121317310.4834@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl>
	<CAAyV7nGO76dP6NnvuTZ54eY3RuvkucNfSwW=uJJ707sHxEbt6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7MaOFsUw3VSW-c37SxgokBKDds3RiZ3EKbHXyg=gD6mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FD786EA.7040401@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:11:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4FqnOgBCaKe4Sd-iPoY4XUPYOHUiCPUOKVG_kZXFu6eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, David Soria Parra <dsp@php.net>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PBKDF2 addition to OpenSSL - Why Not Hash?
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi Stas,

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, and trivial or self contained and can be discussed on a case by
case basis. I do not see a discussion nor a proposal here, only a
commit followed by a merge. Even the SSL maintainers were not involved
at all. That's not an acceptable way to deal with such things, sorry.

> 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.

Approved if proposed, well thought, well implemented and well tested.

With all respects to Scott's work, not the 1st time that it happened.
We already have issues in this exact extension because of bad API
choices. A little momentum is always necessary to get things done
right.

Cheers,
--
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org