Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89297
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
References: <CAAyV7nG9E-7STWq2Hpe=y5Uf0nWzGMhka+FUX1p1FVNtYNVTJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <112FFBCD-8445-40BC-B92F-3A97D3E97C4C@zend.com>
 <CAAyV7nE0bQba3Wr2yi8FbtDfDA=8ZSFz9dbQG5uZ+eF9bick2A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <56523F74.9040708@lerdorf.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:19:32 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nE0bQba3Wr2yi8FbtDfDA=8ZSFz9dbQG5uZ+eF9bick2A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="WeGPN5X7cnUnU7juM7G9A6CaIFPc26eLN"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] INDRECT in arrays causes count() to become
 unpredictable
From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf)

--WeGPN5X7cnUnU7juM7G9A6CaIFPc26eLN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 11/22/2015 06:18 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> Zeev,
>=20
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22 =D7=91=D7=A0=D7=95=D7=91=D7=B3 2015, at 0:47, Anthony Ferrara <=
ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think this is significant enough to be a blocker to gold and that w=
e
>>> should fix it prior to release.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> IMHO, unless we think fixing this would require breaking binary compat=
ibility (which I don't think is the case) - this shouldn't block 7.0.0.  =
7.0.0 is a lot more about getting people to start paying attention to 7.0=
 and start testing their codebase against it - finding both the incompati=
bilities in their code and, undoubtedly - the bugs we failed to find.  I =
wish we could say this would be the last issue we find in 7.0, but I thin=
k we can all agree it's wishful thinking...
>=20
> Consider that Distros may very well pick whatever we call stable for
> LTS releases. Meaning that non-critical (crash/security) bugs that we
> miss may wind up living on for a VERY long time. If we don't intend .0
> to be stable, then what's the point of versioning in the first place?
>=20
> Xinchen,
>=20
> Very interesting on the fix. I do think it's important for this to
> land with 7, but at least we can have the discussion.

I agree with Zeev here and I had a chat with Anatol about this tonight.
This is a .0.0 release. Nobody is going to take a .0.0 and push it
straight to production. And it is not going to part of any sort of LTS
distro either. It's not like LTS distros don't pick up point releases.
There is no way we will go 2 weeks without finding something for quite a
while still which can drag things out indefinitely. The question is
whether this is significant enough to postpone further. Personally I
don't think it is. Let's get 7.0.0 out the door and get ourselves on
track for regular point releases without any of this "perfect-release"
stress.

-Rasmus


--WeGPN5X7cnUnU7juM7G9A6CaIFPc26eLN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlZSP3sACgkQlxayKTuqOuCnFwCeJlE9WSrbSSmCv6xMY+pE7wMG
ujgAn2q0sGeoJRHZQaazyFVrFWlcN7q4
=aQTJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--WeGPN5X7cnUnU7juM7G9A6CaIFPc26eLN--