New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DateIntervalType (negative support) resolves doctrine/dbal#2578 #2763

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@EHER

EHER commented Jun 30, 2017

  • PR #2579 from @galeaspablo using suggestion from comments to support old DateInterval format.
@galeaspablo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@galeaspablo

galeaspablo Jun 30, 2017

Contributor

Is there any need to support the old format? BC doesn't matter inside dev branch.

Contributor

galeaspablo commented Jun 30, 2017

Is there any need to support the old format? BC doesn't matter inside dev branch.

@lcobucci

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lcobucci

lcobucci Jun 30, 2017

Member

BC doesn't matter inside dev branch.

It does matter, 2.6 is a minor release not a major one.

Member

lcobucci commented Jun 30, 2017

BC doesn't matter inside dev branch.

It does matter, 2.6 is a minor release not a major one.

@galeaspablo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@galeaspablo

galeaspablo Jun 30, 2017

Contributor

The old format was introduced inside 2.6 dev. If it was in 2.5, it would be a new type.

I.e. backwards compatibility of something that was introduced in the same dev branch doesn't matter.

Contributor

galeaspablo commented Jun 30, 2017

The old format was introduced inside 2.6 dev. If it was in 2.5, it would be a new type.

I.e. backwards compatibility of something that was introduced in the same dev branch doesn't matter.

@galeaspablo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@galeaspablo

galeaspablo Jul 8, 2017

Contributor

Please also refer to #2578 (comment) This is not a backwards compatibility break.

Also, please note that since #2316 was merged, the PR needs to be changed. Which I've now donw in #2579 (comment)

Contributor

galeaspablo commented Jul 8, 2017

Please also refer to #2578 (comment) This is not a backwards compatibility break.

Also, please note that since #2316 was merged, the PR needs to be changed. Which I've now donw in #2579 (comment)

@lcobucci

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lcobucci

lcobucci Jul 23, 2017

Member

Please also refer to #2578 (comment) This is not a backwards compatibility break.

Also, please note that since #2316 was merged, the PR needs to be changed. Which I've now donw in #2579 (comment)

You're correct, closing this one.

Member

lcobucci commented Jul 23, 2017

Please also refer to #2578 (comment) This is not a backwards compatibility break.

Also, please note that since #2316 was merged, the PR needs to be changed. Which I've now donw in #2579 (comment)

You're correct, closing this one.

@lcobucci lcobucci closed this Jul 23, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment