On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
>> No, just like what I said for the is_a change, but it was acceptable >> for is_a, right? is_a actually broken many (many) apps and codes out >> there and it was easily identified, and it was even acceptable in a >> patch release. Go figure. > > Please do not drag totally unrelated matters into the discussion. It serves > absolutely no purpose. That's exactly the same situation, we change something and "fix the test" to adapt to the actual behavior. >> Look at the history for the mysql's bugs, plenty of them, internally >> or in userland. > > OK, look at them and? What you want me to see there? That's the libmysql world is far from being perfect (very far) and it is time to get mysqlnd mainstream. And if 5.4 is not the right time, the let kill that thing or move it to pecl as it is totally useless if almost nobody uses it (as it is the case right now) >> Can you please, and seriously, that's my last attempt, read my answers >> and see what we actually test? I never claimed that nobody uses this >> behavior but I cannot find any code, app or framework failing with >> mysqlnd. Please find one and I will change my mind. > > You said "I cannot find any code out there relying on this test case and I > very much doubt there is any.". This means you're claiming we're testing > behavior for which there's no code out there - if your guesses reflect the > truth - that is using it. I think you're wrong but that's exactly what you > said. In my book "I very much doubt" has another meaning than "I'm totally sure". Still waiting for an example outside this test tho'. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
