We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while 5.3
is making very good progress I think it is still ways off in terms of
final release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to do one more
5.2 release before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be discontinued. I would
like to roll an RC1 by May 28th, so please get your fixes in.
Thanks,
Ilia Alshanetsky
5.2 Release Master
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while 5.3
is making very good progress I think it is still ways off in terms of
final release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to do one more
5.2 release before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be discontinued. I would like
to roll an RC1 by May 28th, so please get your fixes in.
Since 5.3 DOES require some work to port legacy applications over PLEASE
do not discontinue 5.2 security fixes until 5.3 has bedded down
( remember 5.1 ... )
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while 5.3 is
making very good progress I think it is still ways off in terms of final
release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to do one more 5.2 release
before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be discontinued. I would like to roll an RC1
by May 28th, so please get your fixes in.Since 5.3 DOES require some work to port legacy applications over
Do you have a quick list of things that is required so we can document
them, or maybe even fix?
-Hannes
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while 5.3 is
making very good progress I think it is still ways off in terms of final
release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to do one more 5.2 release
before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be discontinued. I would like to roll an RC1
by May 28th, so please get your fixes in.
Since 5.3 DOES require some work to port legacy applications overDo you have a quick list of things that is required so we can document
them, or maybe even fix?
Several hundred warnings that are not present currently?
The code base has not YET dropped PHP4 compatibility, so a PHP5 only
build may be required to 'tidy things up' .... and we are not able as
yet to do THAT :(
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
Since 5.3 DOES require some work to port legacy applications over
Do you have a quick list of things that is required so we can document
them, or maybe even fix?Several hundred warnings that are not present currently?
Please be more precise.
-Hannes
Sorry Hannes - forgot to change To address!
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
Hannes Magnusson wrote:
Since 5.3 DOES require some work to port legacy applications over
Do you have a quick list of things that is required so we can document
them, or maybe even fix?
Several hundred warnings that are not present currently?Please be more precise.
I would like to be, but having downloaded RC2 clean and had a look we
still have the major blocker of not having php_interbase.dll in the
windows build - so I'm unable to run any of my test stuff ...
I don't currently have a Linux box spare to try on that :(
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Hi,
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while 5.3 is
making very good progress I think it is still ways off in terms of final
release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to do one more 5.2 release
before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be discontinued. I would like to roll an RC1
by May 28th, so please get your fixes in.
Thanks for the notice! End of the month for the RC1 is perfect.
About discontinuing 5.2, it may be too early to decide.
Cheers,
Pierre
Hi,
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while 5.3 is
making very good progress I think it is still ways off in terms of final
release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to do one more 5.2 release
before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be discontinued. I would like to roll an RC1
by May 28th, so please get your fixes in.Thanks for the notice! End of the month for the RC1 is perfect.
About discontinuing 5.2, it may be too early to decide.
This makes me a little sad - I was thinking PHP 5.3 was closer to production.
IMHO, 5.2 should be stopped as soon as 5.3.0 is released.
Hi,
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while 5.3 is
making very good progress I think it is still ways off in terms of final
release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to do one more 5.2 release
before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be discontinued. I would like to roll an RC1
by May 28th, so please get your fixes in.Thanks for the notice! End of the month for the RC1 is perfect.
About discontinuing 5.2, it may be too early to decide.
This makes me a little sad - I was thinking PHP 5.3 was closer to production.
--
--
Guilherme Blanco - Web Developer
CBC - Certified Bindows Consultant
Cell Phone: +55 (16) 9215-8480
MSN: guilhermeblanco@hotmail.com
URL: http://blog.bisna.com
São Paulo - SP/Brazil
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while 5.3
is making very good progress I think it is still ways off in terms of
final release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to do one more
5.2 release before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be discontinued. I would like
to roll an RC1 by May 28th, so please get your fixes in.
I would really like to make a patch to ext/json to expose the encoding/decoding functions
so that they can be called from other extensions. I should be able to wrap this up in the
next few days.
-Andrei
This is a new feature, so it would be more appropriate for 5.3/6 more
so then for 5.2 IMHO.
Ilia Alshanetsky
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while
5.3 is making very good progress I think it is still ways off in
terms of final release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to
do one more 5.2 release before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be
discontinued. I would like to roll an RC1 by May 28th, so please
get your fixes in.I would really like to make a patch to ext/json to expose the
encoding/decoding functions so that they can be called from other
extensions. I should be able to wrap this up in the next few days.-Andrei
It doesn't impact anything though, does it? And it would really help for implementing
json-based serializers (such as for memcached).
-Andrei
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
This is a new feature, so it would be more appropriate for 5.3/6 more so
then for 5.2 IMHO.Ilia Alshanetsky
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while
5.3 is making very good progress I think it is still ways off in
terms of final release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to
do one more 5.2 release before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be
discontinued. I would like to roll an RC1 by May 28th, so please get
your fixes in.I would really like to make a patch to ext/json to expose the
encoding/decoding functions so that they can be called from other
extensions. I should be able to wrap this up in the next few days.-Andrei
It's still new stuff. And we need more things in 5.3/6 to make them more
interesting to general populus too. ;)
--Jani
Andrei Zmievski kirjoitti:
It doesn't impact anything though, does it? And it would really help for
implementing json-based serializers (such as for memcached).-Andrei
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
This is a new feature, so it would be more appropriate for 5.3/6 more
so then for 5.2 IMHO.Ilia Alshanetsky
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while
5.3 is making very good progress I think it is still ways off in
terms of final release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to
do one more 5.2 release before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be
discontinued. I would like to roll an RC1 by May 28th, so please get
your fixes in.I would really like to make a patch to ext/json to expose the
encoding/decoding functions so that they can be called from other
extensions. I should be able to wrap this up in the next few days.-Andrei
Jani Taskinen wrote:
It's still new stuff. And we need more things in 5.3/6 to make them more
interesting to general populus too. ;)
Great, so I'll just end up copying almost all of ext/json code into pecl/memcached then.
Hooray for loose coupling.
-Andrei
Andrei,
There is no question about functionality being useful for some people.
But what is the point of different branches if we put whatever we want
into each branch? We may as well stick to one branch and commit
features, bug fixes, etc... into it.
Ilia Alshanetsky
Jani Taskinen wrote:
It's still new stuff. And we need more things in 5.3/6 to make them
more interesting to general populus too. ;)Great, so I'll just end up copying almost all of ext/json code into
pecl/memcached then. Hooray for loose coupling.-Andrei
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Andrei,
There is no question about functionality being useful for some people.
But what is the point of different branches if we put whatever we want
into each branch? We may as well stick to one branch and commit
features, bug fixes, etc... into it.
I would fully agree with you if this concerned a user-visible API change or a new feature.
But this is simply exposing a couple of internal functions so that they are visible from
other extensions, and, arguably, something that should have been done properly from the
beginning.
-Andrei
hi Ilia,
Jani Taskinen wrote:
It's still new stuff. And we need more things in 5.3/6 to make them more
interesting to general populus too. ;)Great, so I'll just end up copying almost all of ext/json code into
pecl/memcached then. Hooray for loose coupling.
It is actually not about adding features. If I understand correctly
what Andrei likes to have, it is only about exposing the JSON API.
That means no code change (no new feature or whatever else) but only
adding the right PHP_API related declaration to the right place and
install the json header. That could actually be very useful with no
impact on the code (userland or extensions).
I think we should allow this change.
Cheers,
Pierre
If we are simply changing the declaration that should be fine, is
there a patch available for review?
Ilia Alshanetsky
hi Ilia,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Andrei Zmievski <andrei@gravitonic.com
wrote:
Jani Taskinen wrote:It's still new stuff. And we need more things in 5.3/6 to make
them more
interesting to general populus too. ;)Great, so I'll just end up copying almost all of ext/json code into
pecl/memcached then. Hooray for loose coupling.It is actually not about adding features. If I understand correctly
what Andrei likes to have, it is only about exposing the JSON API.
That means no code change (no new feature or whatever else) but only
adding the right PHP_API related declaration to the right place and
install the json header. That could actually be very useful with no
impact on the code (userland or extensions).I think we should allow this change.
Cheers,
Pierre
Not yet. It's a simple declaration change for json_encode_r(), but json_decode() doesn't
have json_decode_r(), so we'd need to create it from the guts of json_decode().
-Andrei
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
If we are simply changing the declaration that should be fine, is there
a patch available for review?Ilia Alshanetsky
hi Ilia,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Andrei Zmievski
andrei@gravitonic.com wrote:Jani Taskinen wrote:
It's still new stuff. And we need more things in 5.3/6 to make them
more
interesting to general populus too. ;)Great, so I'll just end up copying almost all of ext/json code into
pecl/memcached then. Hooray for loose coupling.It is actually not about adding features. If I understand correctly
what Andrei likes to have, it is only about exposing the JSON API.
That means no code change (no new feature or whatever else) but only
adding the right PHP_API related declaration to the right place and
install the json header. That could actually be very useful with no
impact on the code (userland or extensions).I think we should allow this change.
Cheers,
Pierre
hi Ilia,
Jani Taskinen wrote:
It's still new stuff. And we need more things in 5.3/6 to make them more
interesting to general populus too. ;)Great, so I'll just end up copying almost all of ext/json code into
pecl/memcached then. Hooray for loose coupling.It is actually not about adding features. If I understand correctly
what Andrei likes to have, it is only about exposing the JSON API.
That means no code change (no new feature or whatever else) but only
adding the right PHP_API related declaration to the right place and
install the json header. That could actually be very useful with no
impact on the code (userland or extensions).I think we should allow this change.
Sorry if I'm not getting this right, but doesn't he have to explicitly require version >= 5.2.10 in his pecl/memcached extension? It's not like that with this change his extension is going to work for 5.2.x. Requiring >= 5.2.10 is such a strict requirement that should be replaced with >= 5.3.0.
--
Giovanni Giacobbi
Giovanni Giacobbi wrote:
hi Ilia,
Jani Taskinen wrote:
It's still new stuff. And we need more things in 5.3/6 to make them more
interesting to general populus too. ;)
Great, so I'll just end up copying almost all of ext/json code into
pecl/memcached then. Hooray for loose coupling.
It is actually not about adding features. If I understand correctly
what Andrei likes to have, it is only about exposing the JSON API.
That means no code change (no new feature or whatever else) but only
adding the right PHP_API related declaration to the right place and
install the json header. That could actually be very useful with no
impact on the code (userland or extensions).I think we should allow this change.
Sorry if I'm not getting this right, but doesn't he have to explicitly require version >= 5.2.10 in his pecl/memcached extension? It's not like that with this change his extension is going to work for 5.2.x. Requiring >= 5.2.10 is such a strict requirement that should be replaced with >= 5.3.0.
You can use call_user_func_ex() internally to call it, it's nicer to use
the C API though.
Though this is the wrong place to ask.
Scott
Ilia Alshanetsky kirjoitti:
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while 5.3
is making very good progress I think it is still ways off in terms of
final release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to do one more
5.2 release before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be discontinued. I would like
to roll an RC1 by May 28th, so please get your fixes in.
Can we add some sort of notice to that release, something like this:
"If you did not test a release candidate, any bug report send about issue
introduced in this release will automatically be bogus." ?? :D
--Jani
Maybe only allow people who ran make test and submitted the results
during the RC phase to submit bugs, eh? ;-)
Ilia Alshanetsky
Ilia Alshanetsky kirjoitti:
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while
5.3 is making very good progress I think it is still ways off in
terms of final release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to
do one more 5.2 release before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be
discontinued. I would like to roll an RC1 by May 28th, so please
get your fixes in.Can we add some sort of notice to that release, something like this:
"If you did not test a release candidate, any bug report send about
issue introduced in this release will automatically be bogus." ?? :D--Jani
Hi!
We have a fair number of fixes in the 5.2 branch already and while 5.3
is making very good progress I think it is still ways off in terms of
final release and stabilization. I think it makes sense to do one more
5.2 release before 5.3 is out and 5.2 can be discontinued. I would like
to roll an RC1 by May 28th, so please get your fixes in.
I think 5.2 should still be alive for security/critical fixes at least
until we are sure 5.3 is tested enough in the field.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com