Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93088
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANaX5net-weLNN7d5owOSCzdy0zYCwozNNsBuP=Hj00FFP-VsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOfKkdT1WVFCYTC9A7=AvWy=odsgAc-dKRwXawEeorQhz1=08w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANaX5ncVk2L6W4fvDjsD8YWLodoq8gOZ4tMOR5AzdWSEaRVxSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<059601d1a050$90fa0fb0$b2ee2f10$@belski.net>
	<CAOfKkdQY5gSVfcsWC9-Wxjj37sSwoiD5e=sG8XSiWj-fXSZ8Hg@mail.gmail.com>
	<068e01d1a09a$c465f900$4d31eb00$@belski.net>
	<CAOfKkdQdCEgiXCdJnk2DAbcqEfAPdpZuo+dcPFJo+NOaj6-Zsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<06b201d1a0a5$9d446bd0$d7cd4370$@belski.net>
	<CAOfKkdSGgKEAxx9J+cOo+huVENOUudXVmq0joRYg2OBpOxLUww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOfKkdQnq60oJey4-gQ5qS0JeeDGQNDpnfg+LHjZcxmFTAJEBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANaX5net-weLNN7d5owOSCzdy0zYCwozNNsBuP=Hj00FFP-VsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:32:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c_DDZVM9PKK3BunDLE-tZ0g_GHT+8OEVMzaF+jB2X8aiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Davey Shafik <davey@php.net>
Cc: Pierrick Charron <pierrick@adoy.net>, Anatol Belski <anatol.php@belski.net>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, pajoye@php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114d7490f3e9b50532185e71
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: ext/curl update
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--001a114d7490f3e9b50532185e71
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Davey Shafik <davey@php.net> wrote:

> I seem to have created some confusion here:
>
> The reason _my_ patch for Server Push isn't merged is tests for it were
> requested and are blocking it. I'm not saying tests for these constants
> should be added.
>

For the record, I'm fine with landing your server push patch based on
review and manual tests only. It is not an ideal situation, but I don't
think we should block this kind of trivial change on the implementation of
full-blown HTTP 2.0 support in the built-in server. The latter is a much
bigger project, I'm sure it's going to be somewhat controversial (pulls in
new dependencies) and I don't see how this can land on the 7.1 timeline
(unless someone is actively working on a patch already?)

Nikita

--001a114d7490f3e9b50532185e71--