Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76742 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 96413 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2014 20:21:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Aug 2014 20:21:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=php@mabe.berlin; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=php@mabe.berlin; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain mabe.berlin from 80.237.132.171 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: php@mabe.berlin X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.237.132.171 wp164.webpack.hosteurope.de Received: from [80.237.132.171] ([80.237.132.171:57141] helo=wp164.webpack.hosteurope.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FE/9E-29327-94305F35 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:21:30 -0400 Received: from dslb-188-102-026-115.188.102.pools.vodafone-ip.de ([188.102.26.115] helo=[192.168.178.30]); authenticated by wp164.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1XKCNp-00053u-H1; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 22:21:25 +0200 Message-ID: <53F5033E.7060801@mabe.berlin> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 22:21:18 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stas Malyshev , Sara Golemon CC: PHP internals References: <53EC84BF.9000002@mabe.berlin> <53EC8507.9020303@mabe.berlin> <53EE5811.6090503@mabe.berlin> <53F28129.2080709@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: <53F28129.2080709@sugarcrm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;php@mabe.berlin;1408566090;567e5bb4; Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Improved logarithm of base 2|10 of standard math function From: php@mabe.berlin (Marc Bennewitz) On 19.08.2014 00:41, Stas Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> I opted for master-only on the grounds that while it's an improvement, >> it's not really a bugfix, and released versions (or versions as near >> to release as 5.6 is) should be bug-fix only. I know there's an >> argument for this *being* a bug-fix, but... >> >> If a consensus feels it should be merged back I won't object. > > I think we can have it in 5.6 and 5.5. 5.4 being very close to > security-only (with the switch technically being already past due) I'd > not merge something that works without the fix back there. > 5.5 and 5.6 would be very OK for me :)