User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Labels |
Added:
?
|
Category | ⇒ | Libraries |
Rel_Number | ⇒ | 5559 | |
Relation Type | ⇒ | Pull Request for |
And now we also have #5967 , which I've just tested with success. I think there where #5967 corrects code, the usage of DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR makes sense.
P.S.: Please @smz check if this one here can be closed in favour of #5967 .
Sorry, Richard, I'm not contributing to this project any more: I've totally lost my trust in it and the way it is managed.
Regards,
Sergio
Thank you for your kind words
I edited the offending things out of the comments. This is certainly not the place for personal attacks. Thanks for keeping that in memory.
Status | Pending | ⇒ | Closed |
Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2015-05-29 01:53:32 |
Closed_By | ⇒ | smz |
I'm leaving this open as it actually solves an issue with current code, but I strongly believe the correct solution is to to standardize on
/
as the directory separator and forget about DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR once and forever.For discussion please use #5559