Everything

php

PHP 5.2 Status Update

php.internals

Ilia A.

20 years ago

It's been quite sometime since 5.2 was branched and looking over our
"todo" majority of planned changes were made. Therefor I'd like to
make an RC1 on Thursday next week and start the stabilization cycle
of 5.2, so we can get a final in about 2 months. Once we start
stabilization cycle, no new features will be accepted, so please use
this week to commit any missing new features or major patches that
have been agreed upon and not yet applied.


Ilia Alshanetsky
5.2 Release Master

Lukas Smith

20 years ago

Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

> It's been quite sometime since 5.2 was branched and looking over our
> "todo" majority of planned changes were made. Therefor I'd like to make
> an RC1 on Thursday next week and start the stabilization cycle of 5.2,
> so we can get a final in about 2 months. Once we start stabilization
> cycle, no new features will be accepted, so please use this week to
> commit any missing new features or major patches that have been agreed
> upon and not yet applied.

I would also appreciate it if people could let me (or Ilia) know of any
todo's already completed (or no longer planed) that are listed on the
todo site:
http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52

Open todo items on that page are "assigned" to the following people:
Derick, Georg, Wez, Marcus, Pierre, Ilia, Dmitry, Rasmus, Gopal

regards,
Lukas

Marcus Börger

20 years ago

Hello Lukas,

Saturday, July 15, 2006, 12:12:12 PM, you wrote:

> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>> It's been quite sometime since 5.2 was branched and looking over our
>> "todo" majority of planned changes were made. Therefor I'd like to make
>> an RC1 on Thursday next week and start the stabilization cycle of 5.2,
>> so we can get a final in about 2 months. Once we start stabilization
>> cycle, no new features will be accepted, so please use this week to
>> commit any missing new features or major patches that have been agreed
>> upon and not yet applied.

> I would also appreciate it if people could let me (or Ilia) know of any
> todo's already completed (or no longer planed) that are listed on the
> todo site:
> http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52

> Open todo items on that page are "assigned" to the following people:
> Derick, Georg, Wez, Marcus, Pierre, Ilia, Dmitry, Rasmus, Gopal

I am also very pissed off that neither anybody cared for the upgrade
file nor did those accusing me personally extremley hard cared for
any further updating of that file....thanks again everybody...which
probably means we're back to normal operation modes after everyone
had a free shot...blablabla

Best regards,
Marcus

Pierre Joye

20 years ago

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:24:26 +0200
helly@php.net (Marcus Boerger) wrote:

> Hello Lukas,
>
> Saturday, July 15, 2006, 12:12:12 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> >> It's been quite sometime since 5.2 was branched and looking over
> >> our "todo" majority of planned changes were made. Therefor I'd
> >> like to make an RC1 on Thursday next week and start the
> >> stabilization cycle of 5.2, so we can get a final in about 2
> >> months. Once we start stabilization cycle, no new features will be
> >> accepted, so please use this week to commit any missing new
> >> features or major patches that have been agreed upon and not yet
> >> applied.
>
> > I would also appreciate it if people could let me (or Ilia) know of
> > any todo's already completed (or no longer planed) that are listed
> > on the todo site:
> > http://oss.backendmedia.com/PhP52
>
> > Open todo items on that page are "assigned" to the following people:
> > Derick, Georg, Wez, Marcus, Pierre, Ilia, Dmitry, Rasmus, Gopal
>
> I am also very pissed off that neither anybody cared for the upgrade
> file nor did those accusing me personally extremley hard cared for
> any further updating of that file....thanks again everybody...which
> probably means we're back to normal operation modes after everyone
> had a free shot...blablabla

And now try in english.

What are you trying to say?

For the record, I kept this file updated. And I did update it today
after having discussed with Ilia about the deadlines.

-- Pierre

Derick Rethans

20 years ago

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Lukas Smith wrote:

> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> > It's been quite sometime since 5.2 was branched and looking over our "todo"
> > majority of planned changes were made. Therefor I'd like to make an RC1 on
> > Thursday next week and start the stabilization cycle of 5.2, so we can get a
> > final in about 2 months. Once we start stabilization cycle, no new features
> > will be accepted, so please use this week to commit any missing new features
> > or major patches that have been agreed upon and not yet applied.

This caught be a bit by surprise as I was unavailabe the last two weeks,
so I hope I am still in time with my todo items (enabling ext/date
finally, and adding ext/filter with a symlink).

Derick

--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org

Pierre Joye

20 years ago

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:39:18 +0200 (CEST)
derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Lukas Smith wrote:
>
> > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> > > It's been quite sometime since 5.2 was branched and looking over
> > > our "todo" majority of planned changes were made. Therefor I'd
> > > like to make an RC1 on Thursday next week and start the
> > > stabilization cycle of 5.2, so we can get a final in about 2
> > > months. Once we start stabilization cycle, no new features will
> > > be accepted, so please use this week to commit any missing new
> > > features or major patches that have been agreed upon and not yet
> > > applied.
>
> This caught be a bit by surprise as I was unavailabe the last two
> weeks, so I hope I am still in time with my todo items (enabling
> ext/date finally, and adding ext/filter with a symlink).

It seems that you are constantly and permanently do whatever you want.
That has to change.

We never agreed to enable *all* date classes and functions. The TODO,
online and approved since weeks, only mention date_sun_info and nothing
else.

Please revert before the first RC.

We have to solve this issue but in a reasonable and timed way, not with
your own and unilateral decisions.

Cheers,
-- Pierre

Ilia A.

20 years ago

The date extension functionality can be enabled, but we need to
rename the date class to avoid naming conflicts encountered with PHP
5.1. There have been two names under consideration datetime and
phpdate. Personally I'd prefer datetime, but after doing a quick
search on google that seems like a popular name, already being used
in various classes and libraries. phpdate (or PHPDate to comply with
studly caps conventions ;-) ) on the otherhand is only used a very
small number of times is minor classes therefor seems like a safe name.

If you chose PHPDate is the class name, I would no objections to
including the functionality, assuming there are no technical merits
for not including the extension.


On 18-Jul-06, at 8:39 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Lukas Smith wrote:
>
>> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>>> It's been quite sometime since 5.2 was branched and looking over
>>> our "todo"
>>> majority of planned changes were made. Therefor I'd like to make
>>> an RC1 on
>>> Thursday next week and start the stabilization cycle of 5.2, so
>>> we can get a
>>> final in about 2 months. Once we start stabilization cycle, no
>>> new features
>>> will be accepted, so please use this week to commit any missing
>>> new features
>>> or major patches that have been agreed upon and not yet applied.
>
> This caught be a bit by surprise as I was unavailabe the last two
> weeks,
> so I hope I am still in time with my todo items (enabling ext/date
> finally, and adding ext/filter with a symlink).
>
> Derick
>
> --
> Derick Rethans
> http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>

Ilia Alshanetsky

Pierre Joye

20 years ago

On 7/18/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org> wrote:

> The date extension functionality can be enabled, but we need to
> rename the date class to avoid naming conflicts encountered with PHP
> 5.1.

Wait, you are suggesting to enable this empty class and rename it? And
then he will rename it again for phph6? That's plain stupid and
insane.

I see again only one choice, enable the functions and disable the
class. It is still not what we planed since months for 5.2, but it is
the less problematic solutions.

Any other decisions should not be take in the hurry while releasing 5.2.

--Pierre

Ilia A.

20 years ago

On 18-Jul-06, at 12:16 PM, Pierre wrote:

> On 7/18/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org> wrote:
>> The date extension functionality can be enabled, but we need to
>> rename the date class to avoid naming conflicts encountered with PHP
>> 5.1.
>
> Wait, you are suggesting to enable this empty class and rename it? And
> then he will rename it again for phph6? That's plain stupid and
> insane.

No. Derick wants to enable all the code in the date extension
(methods of the date class and so on). The only way I can see us
doing it is by renaming the 2 classes the extension defines to
something that won't cause namespace problems.

Ilia Alshanetsky

Steph

20 years ago

> On 18-Jul-06, at 12:16 PM, Pierre wrote:
>
>> On 7/18/06, Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@prohost.org> wrote:
>>> The date extension functionality can be enabled, but we need to
>>> rename the date class to avoid naming conflicts encountered with PHP
>>> 5.1.
>>
>> Wait, you are suggesting to enable this empty class and rename it? And
>> then he will rename it again for phph6? That's plain stupid and
>> insane.
>
> No. Derick wants to enable all the code in the date extension
> (methods of the date class and so on). The only way I can see us
> doing it is by renaming the 2 classes the extension defines to
> something that won't cause namespace problems.

Hate to be a pain, but _what_ namespace problems? Where were all those bug
reports the first time this was enabled? Why hasn't Date in PEAR changed its
name to include the PEAR prefix?  Aren't these 'namespace problems' so much
vaporware?

- Steph

Matt Sicker

20 years ago

On Tuesday 18 July 2006 09:27, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:

> The date extension functionality can be enabled, but we need to
> rename the date class to avoid naming conflicts encountered with PHP
> 5.1. There have been two names under consideration datetime and
> phpdate. Personally I'd prefer datetime, but after doing a quick
> search on google that seems like a popular name, already being used
> in various classes and libraries. phpdate (or PHPDate to comply with
> studly caps conventions ;-) ) on the otherhand is only used a very
> small number of times is minor classes therefor seems like a safe
> name.
>
> If you chose PHPDate is the class name, I would no objections to
> including the functionality, assuming there are no technical merits
> for not including the extension.
>
> On 18-Jul-06, at 8:39 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Jul 2006, Lukas Smith wrote:
> >> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> >>> It's been quite sometime since 5.2 was branched and looking over
> >>> our "todo"
> >>> majority of planned changes were made. Therefor I'd like to make
> >>> an RC1 on
> >>> Thursday next week and start the stabilization cycle of 5.2, so
> >>> we can get a
> >>> final in about 2 months. Once we start stabilization cycle, no
> >>> new features
> >>> will be accepted, so please use this week to commit any missing
> >>> new features
> >>> or major patches that have been agreed upon and not yet applied.
> >
> > This caught be a bit by surprise as I was unavailabe the last two
> > weeks,
> > so I hope I am still in time with my todo items (enabling ext/date
> > finally, and adding ext/filter with a symlink).
> >
> > Derick
> >
> > --
> > Derick Rethans
> > http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
> >
> > --
> > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
> Ilia Alshanetsky

It'd be nice to have a php namespace, wouldn't it? ;)

Maybe you might not want to include that class until PHP6.  Or, how
about for backwards compatibility, you do prefix the class name with
PHP, but when namespaces come into play, using the php namespace
effectively removes the PHP prefix (e.g. PHPDate == php::Date).

--
Matt Sicker

Antony Dovgal

20 years ago

On 18.07.2006 20:03, Matt Sicker wrote:

> It'd be nice to have a php namespace, wouldn't it? ;)

And that would help... how?
Two classes named "Date" will still clash, namespaces won't magically solve it.

> Maybe you might not want to include that class until PHP6.  Or, how
> about for backwards compatibility, you do prefix the class name with
> PHP, but when namespaces come into play, using the php namespace
> effectively removes the PHP prefix (e.g. PHPDate == php::Date).

--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal

Derick Rethans

20 years ago

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Matt Sicker wrote:

> Maybe you might not want to include that class until PHP6.  Or, how
> about for backwards compatibility, you do prefix the class name with
> PHP, but when namespaces come into play, using the php namespace
> effectively removes the PHP prefix (e.g. PHPDate == php::Date).

If you rename it later it will definitely break at that moment, so
that's a no-no.

Derick

--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org

Matt Sicker

20 years ago

On Tuesday 18 July 2006 12:25, Derick Rethans wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Matt Sicker wrote:
> > Maybe you might not want to include that class until PHP6.  Or, how
> > about for backwards compatibility, you do prefix the class name
> > with PHP, but when namespaces come into play, using the php
> > namespace effectively removes the PHP prefix (e.g. PHPDate ==
> > php::Date).
>
> If you rename it later it will definitely break at that moment, so
> that's a no-no.
>
> Derick

What I'm suggesting is that for PHP6, allow namespaces to be used in two
different ways.  Example:

namespace foo {
class bar {
private $baz;
static private $oof = 0;
function __construct($baz) {
$this->baz = $baz;
$this->oof++; # I don't remember if you can do this, but you get
# the idea
}
static function getOof() {
return $this->oof;
}
}
}

Then, we can access class `bar' like so:

$bar = new foo::bar('e.g.');
$oof = foo_bar::getOOf();

Or, you might just remove the underscore altogether so that we can
introduce more useful namespaces (e.g. all the DOM classes can go in
the DOM namespace).  Perhaps you could use the underscore for functions
(!methods), thus also allowing many functions to be given their own
namespaces (e.g. mysql_connect() == mysql::connect()).

Now since you would be able to declare something like:

using namespace mysql;

You'd be able to access its functions like so:

$db = connect('localhost', 'username', 'password') or
die(header('HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Service Error'));

Now that might not be a good example considering mysql_* is old and
crappy, and since using a mysqli example would be redundant since it
already has a class, well, you know...

Anyhow, any feedback on this?  Or should I post this separately to get
feedback since it regards PHP6?

--
Matt Sicker

Marian Kostadinov

20 years ago

I will just warn you that task 17 is assigned to no one but it seems it is
quite easy to be done.

Pierre Joye

20 years ago

On 7/15/06, Marian Kostadinov <manchokapitancho@gmail.com> wrote:

> I will just warn you that task 17 is assigned to no one but it seems it is
> quite easy to be done.

It is, to someone with a shell access :)

Also after I got a german "translation", it seems that Marcus was
talking about the README_UPGRADE file and not the TODO, go figure...

--Pierre