Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:44518 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 51182 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2009 11:30:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Jun 2009 11:30:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@schlueters.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@schlueters.de; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 83.243.58.133 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@schlueters.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 83.243.58.133 mailout1.netbeat.de Linux 2.6 Received: from [83.243.58.133] ([83.243.58.133:56976] helo=mailout1.netbeat.de) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 5E/F1-38693-3C2064A4 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:30:12 -0400 Received: (qmail 16487 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jun 2009 11:53:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.102?) (johannes%schlueters.de@82.135.3.76) by mailout1.netbeat.de with ESMTPA; 27 Jun 2009 11:53:29 -0000 To: Scott MacVicar Cc: Lukas Kahwe Smith , PHP internals In-Reply-To: <0C2F23C2-D188-4938-B44C-4ED166B934CE@macvicar.net> References: <9A46F4B8-E64A-4C3C-B2A5-FC354A3EB71D@pooteeweet.org> <0C2F23C2-D188-4938-B44C-4ED166B934CE@macvicar.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:30:08 +0200 Message-ID: <1246102208.13829.17.camel@goldfinger.johannes.nop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] post 5.3.0 development From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) Hi, On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 18:30 +0100, Scott MacVicar wrote: > 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. In my experience - from projects I participated as well were I just observed - release branches with CVS often end with more pain than freezes. It is of course hard to predict what would happen in this project with these developers in this situation. And well, as said 5.3 is a quite big release and has many things where errors can be introduced and I guess we all want it out soonish as stable as possible ... > We all know your reasons for the freeze and agree with it but holding > up regular development is a PITA. HEAD is the development branch. 5.3 should only get stable stuff anyways. And I assume you are committing only well tested stuff to 5.3 which means you have some way of management outside CVS assisting you during development and testing of your stuff. About the extension of the freeze for the migration: I think we first should have a window for getting some fixes in before doing the migration so at least some of the backlog can be cleared. As far as I know there's n final complete migration plan and there might be people who want to play a little with the test repo once 5.3 is out. johannes