Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:46305 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25400 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2009 13:50:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Dec 2009 13:50:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ilia@prohost.org; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ilia@prohost.org; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain prohost.org from 209.85.212.195 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ilia@prohost.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.195 mail-vw0-f195.google.com Received: from [209.85.212.195] ([209.85.212.195:59003] helo=mail-vw0-f195.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AE/66-31234-F180D1B4 for ; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:50:25 -0500 Received: by vws33 with SMTP id 33so1674407vws.27 for ; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 05:50:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.122.90 with SMTP id k26mr8370154vcr.9.1260193820203; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 05:50:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from paulalaptop.centah.local (dev.centah.com [67.215.199.37]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm12423868vws.15.2009.12.07.05.50.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 07 Dec 2009 05:50:19 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 08:50:18 -0500 Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FCter?= , internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <1260193069.1383.33.camel@guybrush> To: Pierre Joye X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Towards 5.3.2 From: ilia@prohost.org (Ilia Alshanetsky) Pierre, Actually patches were indeed missed, in fact we almost missed a security = fix. As far as the wiki goes, most people don't even know it exists, let = alone where to find it. Also, looking at the wiki there are a whole = series of patches that did not go in into 5.3.1, that there is little = indication as to why they didn't. On 2009-12-07, at 8:46 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: > 2009/12/7 Ilia Alshanetsky : >> Johannes, >>=20 >> While the separate branch release for 5.3.1 was a worthwhile = experiment, I think it creates too much opportunity for missed patches = and quite frankly makes the whole release process confusing and = complicated. My personal preference would be that 5.3.2, not be released = from a separate branch. >=20 > It was actually the exact opposite. We did not miss patches once we > were synced. The way we tracked the patches also let us actually > define what must go in and what not, avoiding the classical last > minute bad patches. The key to success is to do not let go months > between a commit and its merge to the release branch, which was a real > pain when we began 5.3.1. >=20 > Cheers, > -- > Pierre >=20 > http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org