Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73313 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 38550 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2014 01:17:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Mar 2014 01:17:03 -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 108.166.43.123 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.123 smtp123.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.123] ([108.166.43.123:57718] helo=smtp123.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 55/21-33112-E814A235 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:17:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp8.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 466F51A0A45; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:16:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp8.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 05BAB1A04B3; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <532A418A.8020607@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:16:58 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tjerk Meesters CC: PHP Internals References: <532A3E88.20202@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Merge PR 621 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Yes, that's probably what it was supposed to do, but as you can see > from bug 66834 that's clearly not the case. I had earlier approached > the problem purely from SPL standpoint (see linked PR) but Etienne > said that it would be a better idea to tackle this issue further up > the chain so to speak :) I think we need to first find out why that code did not work, instead of ripping out the code that already was supposed to do exactly what this bug is saying and replacing it with other code. At least we need to know the reason why that did not work. So please do not merge this patch until we know what's going on there. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227