Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25989 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75318 invoked by uid 1010); 8 Oct 2006 00:45:49 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75303 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2006 00:45:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 Oct 2006 00:45:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=antony@zend.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=antony@zend.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 80.74.107.235 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: antony@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.74.107.235 mail.zend.com Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4) Received: from [80.74.107.235] ([80.74.107.235:23373] helo=mail.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 29/E8-30177-A3A48254 for ; Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:45:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 21063 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2006 00:44:24 -0000 Received: from internal.zend.office (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (10.1.1.1) by internal.zend.office with SMTP; 8 Oct 2006 00:44:24 -0000 Message-ID: <45284A35.6020000@zend.com> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 04:45:41 +0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Edin Kadribasic CC: Rasmus Lerdorf , Ilia Alshanetsky , PHP Internals List References: <4526E304.50701@emini.dk> <4526E5F6.7040506@lerdorf.com> <452845A9.1040609@emini.dk> In-Reply-To: <452845A9.1040609@emini.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Release php-5.2.0RC6 From: antony@zend.com (Antony Dovgal) On 10/08/2006 04:26 AM, Edin Kadribasic wrote: > Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> Edin Kadribasic wrote: >>> Now that we know that there is going to be RC6 I think there is no >>> point in waiting for another week for it just because we have to >>> release things on Thursday. >>> >>> I think that the best thing would be to make immediate RC6 and allow >>> people some time to test it, and if nothing critical comes up, release >>> the final version in a week or so. >> >> Many people haven't had a chance to look at RC5 yet. I think cycling >> through them too fast is going to frustrate people. Give them a couple >> of days to report other issues before going to RC6. > > Having to wait a week while there is another RC and allowing commits in > the meanwhile, any of which can break things, is not the best release > management from my perspective. I tend to disagree with you here, Edin. Releasing one RC just after another - _that_ would be bad management. RCs are RCs, if something is broken in one of them, let's wait for the next one and see if it ok. Also, I don't like the rush in the release management which to appears from time to time, but this time (I mean 5.2) something (or someone) has changed and I really like how it goes, so let's make it as stable as we can and push it out of the door without any hurry. -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal