Re: Re: is_a() - again - a better fix

On 09/23/2011 01:37 AM, Alan Knowles wrote: > This patch adds an extra parameter 'allow_string' to is_a (default off) > and is_subclass_of (default on) , > > > https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=55475&patch=Is_a_with_allow_string_argument_v3&revision=latest > > <https://bugs.php.net/patch-display.php?bug_id=55475&patch=Is_a_with_allow_string_argument_v3&revision=latest> > > > It also explains why their behaviour is different. This is a clean, no > BC break, solution. let's move on and just fix this. Ok, executive decision made. Patch committed. We obviously screwed up in making this change in the 5_3 branch and since at least one distro has held off in pushing out newer 5.3 builds in order to not break every existing PEAR package, it is completely clear to me that this needed to be fixed in 5.3. So, a couple of ideas to address cases like this in the future. 1. Should we work up a basic PEAR test case that we can add to our tests? 2. Maybe we should think bigger and put more focus on having large PHP frameworks and apps test every RC. Currently we notify them of RCs and just hope someone will test and report back, but that obviously isn't working. We need a Daniel Brown-like approach to this. Someone who is really annoyingly persistent and will hunt down people to test RCs and keep a sign-off checklist of projects that have given a thumbs-up on an RC. Oh, and what do we do in 5.4? Philosophically I think Dmitry's original change was correct, but none of us realized all the code relying (arguably incorrectly) on the original behaviour. -Rasmus