Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74889 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 9887 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2014 23:24:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Jun 2014 23:24:55 -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 67.192.241.113 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.113 smtp113.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.113] ([67.192.241.113:57107] helo=smtp113.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id DA/70-03909-7488B935 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 19:24:55 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp11.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 96FB7D033E; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 19:24:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp11.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 22E60D0532; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 19:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <539B8843.6090008@sugarcrm.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:24:51 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye , Julien Pauli CC: Ferenc Kovacs , David Zuelke , PHP internals , Ilia Alshanetsky References: <035C7115-6871-4FC6-802E-464FD48070EF@heroku.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Fixing (and making easier) Apache mod_proxy_fcgi with PHP-FPM From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! I'm a bit confused here - which patch is proposed for merge here, the one in bug 65641 or the one in pull 694 or both? Because they seem to be different and the original mail mentions both. In any case, neither of them seems critical enough that it couldn't wait for the next scheduled version. We could merge into the dev repo anytime that we agree it's working and people that need it urgently can use the snapshots. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227