At 20:57 20/3/2001, Jani Taskinen wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> >I couldn't find any indication that this can break any of the other sapi
> >builds so I don't think there's a problem with adding it.
>
>Okay. But still I find it very annoying that we don't follow the
>rules w
Well, IIUC, this is really all Jani is trying to say...RC2 is could be
considered invalid now...
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote the following to Sascha Schumann :
> In my humble opinion (humility is a virtue), new modules are fine to add
> while in the release process, as long as there
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 03:30:58PM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
>
> Guys, please play by the rules which are laid down in
> RELEASE_PROCESS. Further decreasing the quality of PHP
> releases doesn't help anyone and just makes us look bad.
i fully agree to sascha. plus i see no r
At 05:03 PM 3/21/2001 +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > The bottom line is that, as I said, the trick in good opensource software
> > is taking calculated risks, and mixing agility with quality assurance. One
> > can look through your binary glasses, and then it's either complete lack of
> > qual
> I think most (probably not all) pl's were sparked due to security bugs
> which were found and we took the opportunity to add another couple of
> important fixes. Those kind of pl's would not have been prevented by any
> Great Plan.
If I remember correctly, 4.0.4pl1 was the only release
A couple of these were buffer overflows IIRC which were security issues.
Remember the group@ emails about those?
Andi
At 07:17 PM 3/21/2001 +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > I think most (probably not all) pl's were sparked due to security bugs
> > which were found and we took the opportunity to
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> A couple of these were buffer overflows IIRC which were security issues.
> Remember the group@ emails about those?
Fixes against format-string attacks and for file-upload
issues went into 4.0.3. Or what are you referring to?
- Sascha
Why do we need to have an interrogation. Relax, it's not such a big deal.
4.0.4pl1 & 4.0.3pl1 both had security fixes (Apache config handling was a
security issue).
Anyway, I still don't understand what the big fuss is about. Let's stop
arguing about this like 4th graders.
By the way, the erro
Hi Andi!
At 19:58 21.3. 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote the following:
--
>Why do we need to have an interrogation. Relax, it's not such a big deal.
We don't. I hope no one will take my remarks personally. :)
>4.0.4pl1 & 4.0.3pl1 both had se
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Why do we need to have an interrogation. Relax, it's not such a big deal.
I'm completely relaxed. I just dislike twisting history.
- Sascha Experience IRCG
http://schumann.cx/http://sch
At 20:50 21/3/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > A couple of these were buffer overflows IIRC which were security issues.
> > Remember the group@ emails about those?
>
> Fixes against format-string attacks and for file-upload
> issues went into 4.0
> The Apache module issue was a security problem. A fairly major one, too.
Yes, that is why I mentioned 4.0.4pl1 as an exception in an
earlier email.
- Sascha Experience IRCG
http://schumann.cx/http://schumann.cx/ircg
--
P
But I referred to 4.0.3pl1 :)
At 21:23 21/3/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > The Apache module issue was a security problem. A fairly major one, too.
>
> Yes, that is why I mentioned 4.0.4pl1 as an exception in an
> earlier email.
>
> - Sascha Expe
At 21:25 21/3/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote:
>
> > Why do we need to have an interrogation. Relax, it's not such a big deal.
>
> I'm completely relaxed. I just dislike twisting history.
Sascha,
As Cynic said, it's really a good idea to stop the flame
quot;PHP Developers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "PHP Quality Assurance Team
Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-CVS] cvs: php4(PHP_4_0_5)
/sapi/fastcgi
> But I
t;I honestly agree with both positions on this one, and I think good can
>come from both of them : )
>
>-Jason
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Zeev Suraski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Sascha Schumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
At 22:19 21/3/2001, Jason Greene wrote:
>If the exception policy was in place here are some questions of thought:
>What would be necessary to make it safe to php in a whole?
I'd say that a module that has no effect on building PHP is fine to add as
an experimental module. The only reason I beli
At 16:38 21/3/2001, Thies C. Arntzen wrote:
> i fully agree to sascha. plus i see no real reason to include
> a new module once we are in "release-process". new modules
> are by default not "producition-stable" so why hurry to
> include them in a "official-release"?
For wide expos
18 matches
Mail list logo
