Fix #1559 - Backported from #1561

[jmsche]

Fixes #1559, replaces #1561

[ruflin]

Thanks @jmsche It would be great if @bdlabs could confirm this change to make sure what we merge works for his issue.

[jmsche]

Sorry I missed your request for an updated CHANGELOG (flu & angina do not help).

That's fixed!

[romaricdrigon]

I confirm the fix works on PHP 5.6, could it be merged please @ruflin ?

[jmsche]

Could you please create a release for this patch? Thanks.

[ruflin]

I just created tag 2.3.3.

[jmsche]

Thank you :)

[ruflin]

Can you please test it and report back if things work as expected? @romaricdrigon Would be great to get your feedback too.

[jmsche]

@ruflin Seems the release was not published to packagist somehow, could you force it? Thanks :)

[ruflin]

What you mean by packaging? composer?

[jmsche]

Packagist or composer yes, see https://packagist.org/packages/ruflin/elastica where the 2.3.3 version has not been published here

[romaricdrigon]

The tag is no published yet on Packagist (https://packagist.org/packages/ruflin/elastica), I couldn't update to test it yet. I believe you should have a "force update" in your Packagist backend, if you are registered as maintainer over there.

[ruflin]

I logged in and hit update. Let's see if that helped.

[romaricdrigon]

Great, I could update to 2.3.3. Everything is working correctly on PHP5.6.

[Tobion]

hey, what's the reason this was merged into branch https://github.com/ruflin/Elastica/tree/2.x-temp but not https://github.com/ruflin/Elastica/tree/2.x ? Can we merge the branches and delete the "temp" one?

[Tobion]

Or just delete both 2.x branches because they are not maintained anymore?

[ruflin]

If I remember correctly, one changes the error behviour, the other one doesn't and I didn't feel comfortable realeasing it. Unfortunately it made it into 2.x and I did not want to break users which rely on this branch but still do a release with an other bugfix, that is how 2.x-temp came into life as the "release branch".

Even though both are not maintained, I guess there are still users out there relying on it. I'm +1 on merging this in 2.x if it helps.

[Tobion]

I cleaned up some merged and outdated branches yesterday. In general I think it helps maintainance to delete branches when they are not relevant anymore.
I could not figure out what 2.x-temp is meant to be. And the latest 2.x tag https://github.com/ruflin/Elastica/releases/tag/2.3.2 does not match any of the 2.x branches. So I'm a little confused. But I guess it does not matter much anymore for an old branch like this.

[ruflin]

I think both are still needed:

• 2.x-temp: To do future 2.x releases. Even though they are EOL, normally if a user goes through the hassle to fix a but there, I still do a release or at least we get into the branch
• 2.x: Contains a change I do not want to release in 2.x but I know some users depend on it.

So the naming is super confusing and 1 commit should have never been merged into 2.x and 2.x should be what 2.x-temp is today 🤦‍♂

Hopefully 2.3.2 is a bit behind 2.x-temp 🤞

Did you clean up some Elastica branches? Good to know :-D