Re: Security Diligence

Hi, On 8 February 2014 16:14, Thomas Hruska <thruska@cubiclesoft.com> wrote: > On 2/8/2014 7:26 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: >> >> Lester, this is not a support list. >> >> It is your good right to stick with dead PHP versions and 10 years old >> code (whether it is your choice or not), but it is definitively not >> good to constantly posts totally off topic posts, replies or complains >> about what we do or don't. It is even more annoying in cases where you >> clearly do not understand the underlying reasons of one feature or >> another. >> >> That being said, I would love to see you actually contribute something >> for a change. > > > How about giving Lester a hard-and-fast deadline to contribute something > useful by? (Being sure to clearly define "useful" in the process.) If he > fails to meet the expectations by the deadline, he gets unceremoniously > booted off the list. The guy posed some doubts on the validity of what two RFCs intended to do in PHP 5.6. It might be off-topic as not being directly linked to the RFC, but going overboard isn't going to change matters. If you really want to change someone's habits you need only ignore them ;). In this case, I responded because drilling some sense of security into programmers is something I view as important (as my blog attests). It's worth having a response on the list for the record for anyone else harbouring unwritten doubts about the efforts of the RFC authors, but are not keen on airing them. The RFCs do imply some awareness of security and that's largely unavoidable unless each and every RFC needs to be a 1000 page masterwork ;). Paddy -- Pádraic Brady http://blog.astrumfutura.com http://www.survivethedeepend.com Zend Framework Community Review Team Zend Framework PHP-FIG Representative