Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95803
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender)
To: "Charles R. Portwood II" <charlesportwoodii@erianna.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAGC=tRnOVdBLrZUyYZJS3bNS6KKoHaCJn+wUrW8JLtUVBoa-7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGC=tRn2YJicwhKpKdzpx55-Yk4Q9BohhQd7ktXa07j4MqL1DA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8bd3a772-a4f1-6b1a-2421-87bedf17af7e@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 17:09:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGC=tRn2YJicwhKpKdzpx55-Yk4Q9BohhQd7ktXa07j4MqL1DA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [RFC][VOTE]: Argon2 Password Hash (Reopened)
From: cmbecker69@gmx.de ("Christoph M. Becker")

On 08.09.2016 at 16:26, Charles R. Portwood II wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Charles R. Portwood II wrote:
> 
>> The RFC for introducing Argon2 as an alternative hashing algorithm for the
>> password_* functions is now re-open. The RFC is available at
>> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/argon2_password_hash
>>
>> Voting is open for 2 week, and will close on September 7th. A 50%+1
>> majority required to pass. If you previously voted you will need to vote
>> again, as the original vote was closed shortly after opening due to an
>> issue with the original RFC language.
> 
> Thanks to everyone who voted and contributed to the discussion. This RFC is
> now closed, and was accepted 12-0 for 7.2. Would someone with VCS access
> please merge this into master (7.2)?

Thanks for the RFC and the PR.  I've just merged it (commit 1305fdaa).

> Separately, what is the process for updating the manual since 7.2 is still
> a ways off?

Probably the first step should be to add some respective notes to
php-src/UPRADING.  Do you want to make a PR or provide a patch by some
other means?

That would already be sufficient, as the doc team is supposed to
integrate the UPGRADING information into the manual proper and the
respective migration guide.

Of course, it's also possible to update the manual now, making sure that
there are notes about the availability (maybe as changelog entries).

-- 
Christoph M. Becker