Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:38707 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 18713 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2008 20:09:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Jul 2008 20:09:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ilia@prohost.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ilia@prohost.org; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain prohost.org from 64.233.170.190 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ilia@prohost.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.233.170.190 rn-out-0910.google.com Received: from [64.233.170.190] ([64.233.170.190:64847] helo=rn-out-0910.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 97/CB-37564-190EB684 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:09:54 -0400 Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k40so227552rnd.0 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.212.12 with SMTP id k12mr13795922ybg.228.1215029391259; Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.129? ( [76.65.228.201]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s30sm7838016qbs.8.2008.07.02.13.09.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:09:50 -0700 (PDT) Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List Message-ID: <79567349-B1D2-4CE7-867B-FFBDD78756C5@prohost.org> To: Lukas Kahwe Smith In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:09:47 -0400 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] towards a 5.3 release From: ilia@prohost.org (Ilia Alshanetsky) I think the sooner we set on 5.3 release path, the better of we will be. As a past RM I can tell you that the more new features exist in a release, the more challenging the release process is. If a faster release cycle means having 2 RMs, then we have 2 RMs, thats my opinion anyhow. On 2-Jul-08, at 4:00 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > Aloha, > > Since Johannes has been stumped (and therefore not as visible as he > would have hoped) with work and 5.3 CVS is already filled brim with > awesome new features, I have been approached by several people > wondering how we can speed up the process. I have always said I am > available to play the secretary to the RM, but in order to ensure > that developers have a greater chance of having an RM to talk to, > Johannes agreed to move me to co-RM status. > > I hope we do not have to have a fundamental discussion about the > merits of 2 RMs. Having 2 RMs should hopefully help speed up the 5.3 > release cycle. Of course it will be the job of the two RMs to ensure > that we are sufficiently in sync with each other. But I guess we are > hopeful that adding an RM is not made unfeasible by this additional > communication between the RMs. Ilia Alshanetsky