Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:89311
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.213.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL=_i_kArsu2JGYtdZBa-mah+k6DL-cCWtiX16mVcTsxH3WDrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAyV7nG9E-7STWq2Hpe=y5Uf0nWzGMhka+FUX1p1FVNtYNVTJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <112FFBCD-8445-40BC-B92F-3A97D3E97C4C@zend.com> <CAAyV7nE0bQba3Wr2yi8FbtDfDA=8ZSFz9dbQG5uZ+eF9bick2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <56523F74.9040708@lerdorf.com> <06a601d125c0$99d5cfd0$cd816f70$@belski.net> <CAL=_i_kArsu2JGYtdZBa-mah+k6DL-cCWtiX16mVcTsxH3WDrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:12:56 +0800
Message-ID: <CABBJUpdTUwvdtK+uRc386R4pceocXCsSEd9s4bu4jvH87MD-8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>
Cc: Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net>, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, 
	Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143ab981746bb052530cc58
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] INDRECT in arrays causes count() to become unpredictable
From: laruence@php.net (Xinchen Hui)

--001a1143ab981746bb052530cc58
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey:

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org> wrote:

> Morning Anatol,
>
> > People that don't test RC won't start to test any later RC anyway.
>
> This wasn't reported by "people", this was found by one of us.
>
> The problem isn't only that we have a bug in symbol tables, the problem i=
s
> that the bug was found so very late in the process.
>
> We cannot reasonably have confidence that no other such bugs exist.

There will always be bugs. that's why we will have 7.0.1, 7.0.2 , the
problem is, wether the bug is serious, does it affects normal usage. we
will try our best to avoid such bugs before release, but we should not
freeze our release roadmap to wait them raise up..

for this one, I don't see how serious it is. so I may consider it as a
general bug.

thanks

>


> I think it doesn't make sense to push forward with the current release ti=
me
> table now. I think it makes sense to do another RC and give *us* a little
> bit longer to test.
>
> Please reconsider.
>
> Cheers
> Joe
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 11:20 PM
> > > To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>; Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.co=
m
> >
> > > Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] INDRECT in arrays causes count() to become
> > > unpredictable
> > >
> > > On 11/22/2015 06:18 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> > > > Zeev,
> > > >
> > > > 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 Ferra=
ra <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think this is significant enough to be a blocker to gold and th=
at
> > > >>> we should fix it prior to release.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thoughts?
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> IMHO, unless we think fixing this would require breaking binary
> > compatibility
> > > (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 testi=
ng
> > their
> > > codebase against it - finding both the incompatibilities in their cod=
e
> > 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 think we can all agree it's wishful
> > thinking...
> > > >
> > > > Consider that Distros may very well pick whatever we call stable fo=
r
> > > > 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 plac=
e?
> > > >
> > > > Xinchen,
> > > >
> > > > 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 tonigh=
t.
> > > 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 quit=
e
> 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 i=
s.
> > 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.
> > >
> > From what I was merging for 7.0.0, I see that there are quite some
> > primitive bug fixes, a couple of non critical 7.0 bugs and 2 bugs merge=
d
> up
> > from 5.6. The issue with the symtable counter stands at some point arou=
nd
> > the critical border. I personally would see it as not crossing that
> border.
> >
> > So based on this, I'd rather go by releasing. The bug list after RC7
> looks
> > pretty much like a regular patch release, or even better. Comparing to
> RC6
> > where it was started to be tested obviously some more intensively, RC7
> > looks more like lost attention. We could go with more RC, sure. However
> in
> > that case IMO we would catch bugs at very low speed with no guarantee w=
e
> > have a good thing at the end when we "think" it's good. This will cause
> us
> > to defer things for much longer time. Releasing on 26th (or on 3rd with
> > respect to Thanksgiving, if there are still strong concerns) were IMHO
> > convenient for this reasons.
> >
> > People that don't test RC won't start to test any later RC anyway. Peop=
le
> > that don't test RC will start to use  GA and that will lead to bug
> reports,
> > in any case. So IMHO at this point we are good enough to do the first
> > release with all the known bugs fixed, with the knowledge that no
> critical
> > bugs are present, with the knowledge that community projects like Drupa=
l
> 8,
> > Symfony, etc. report the green tests, and with intention to get people
> > waiting for GA involved.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Anatol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
> >
>



--=20
Xinchen Hui
@Laruence
http://www.laruence.com/

--001a1143ab981746bb052530cc58--