Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61059 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 903 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2012 23:51:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Jun 2012 23:51:23 -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 67.192.241.139 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.139 smtp139.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.139] ([67.192.241.139:50000] helo=smtp139.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F2/76-58870-9F09FEF4 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:51:22 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp30.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C20B63483E4; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:51:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp30.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 261083483E1; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:51:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FEF90F5.4090502@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:51:17 -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: Nikita Popov CC: Nikita Popov , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_S?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?chl=FCter?= , Pierre Joye , David Soria Parra , PHP Internals References: <4FEF84D8.20107@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: JSON changes in 5.3/5.4 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > If you are okay with the changes in principle, I will fix the > remaining issues asap. If you think that the changes are too intrusive > for release branches, I'll gladly revert them for 5.3/5.4. I didn't > quite expect that there will be so many changes. I think changes with adding new functions, etc. are too intrusive for 5.3/5.4. If you have any fixes that can be done without it, please describe them and let's see if they fit stable versions. Otherwise, let's go back to stable. In any case, the tests should be fixed too. > Apart from that one test, does anything else fail for you? I didn't > notice that one test because I'm running on 32bit. That's the only test that failed for me in 5.4. > Regarding documentation, should these changes be documented in detail > in NEWS? Or does it suffice to update the documentation? For > UPGRADING, which one should it go in? Just 5.3? It would be best to have short description in UPGRADING and full description in the docs. NEWS should have short mention of it. But since we're talking about moving all substantial changes to 5.5, that's where it should be. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227