Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:44488 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 44538 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2009 20:36:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Jun 2009 20:36:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=scott@macvicar.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=scott@macvicar.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain macvicar.net from 97.107.131.220 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: scott@macvicar.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 97.107.131.220 whisky.macvicar.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [97.107.131.220] ([97.107.131.220:51695] helo=whisky.macvicar.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C5/B6-08868-431354A4 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:36:04 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.102] (macvicar.demon.co.uk [80.177.111.173]) by whisky.macvicar.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8B646957; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:36:00 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Lukas Kahwe Smith , PHP internals Message-ID: To: Pierre Joye 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 v935.3) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:35:58 +0100 References: <9A46F4B8-E64A-4C3C-B2A5-FC354A3EB71D@pooteeweet.org> <0C2F23C2-D188-4938-B44C-4ED166B934CE@macvicar.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] post 5.3.0 development From: scott@macvicar.net (Scott MacVicar) I *completely* agree with making sure 5.3.0 is stable and stopping extra things sneaking their way in. I just don't like the way that it is being done. If the release is tagged and built, then why continue with the freeze? Why not open it up for bug fixes towards 5.3.1? If the reason that you're about to be given is, we might find something critical and need to re-roll 5.3.0 then branch from the tag you've created, fix what's needed and re-tag. Even though CVS sucks it does allow this. This is the way the Mozilla project has done it for years, following their example we'd just create a PHP_5_3_RELBRANCH and work from that. The RMs are the only ones that get to decide what goes in after the freeze. https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey:Release_Process Scott On 26 Jun 2009, at 21:12, Pierre Joye wrote: > you totally misunderstood the mail. The freeze is about the days > between now and the release itself on Tuesday (monday evening > actually). That's perfectly valid. > > The idea then is to allow only bug fixes in 5.3.1, and only bug fixes. > What's wrong with that? > > -- > Pierre > > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Scott MacVicar > wrote: >> On 26 Jun 2009, at 19:59, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >>> >>> On 26.06.2009, at 20:26, Pierre Joye wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Scott MacVicar >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 26 Jun 2009, at 16:26, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Aloha, >>>>>> >>>>>> So the last fix is just being prepared for a commit and so we >>>>>> will be >>>>>> tagging 5.3.0 soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> We would like to up hold the commit freeze until 5.3.0 is >>>>>> announced >>>>>> next >>>>>> Tuesday. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This freeze that you guys have implemented is frustrating, just >>>>> branch >>>>> 5_3 >>>>> into a release branch and Johannes can take selective fixes from >>>>> 5_3 as >>>>> needed. >>>>> >>>>> We all know your reasons for the freeze and agree with it but >>>>> holding up >>>>> regular development is a PITA. >>>> >>>> It is not holding up development. It is about getting a viable >>>> release >>>> cycle and to give us the minimum safety to release 5.3.1 in a >>>> reasonable time frame. Please explain me what's wrong to allow only >>>> bug fixes for this phase? >>>> >>>> Also please note that we have HEAD for all the developments and new >>>> features. >>> >>> Exactly. >>> I will do my best to track things that need to be merged. Best is >>> to note >>> if something needs to be merged. >>> >>> But if you all feel it's such a huge burden then you can of course >>> insist >>> on putting the burden on the RMs. The fact of the matter is that >>> our current >>> infrastructure is not fit for providing both sides with an efficient >>> solution. >>> >> >> If we're freezing some more after this release for the SVN >> conversion then >> we could have a pretty cold branch for another week or so. >> >> As I've already said, I agree with only allow verified bug fixes by >> Johannes >> into 5.3.0. it's this extra bureaucracy that is getting added on >> top that's >> sucking hard. >> >> I don't want to leave it up to someone else to merge it into 5.3, I >> should >> be doing it myself. It's possible that things could get >> accidentally missed >> wen someone else is applying it.