Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:46333 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 85553 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2009 18:44:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Dec 2009 18:44:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=jani.taskinen@sci.fi; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=jani.taskinen@sci.fi; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain sci.fi from 204.13.248.71 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: jani.taskinen@sci.fi X-Host-Fingerprint: 204.13.248.71 mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org Received: from [204.13.248.71] ([204.13.248.71:58425] helo=mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id AE/E2-31234-6FC4D1B4 for ; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:44:08 -0500 Received: from cs27025051.pp.htv.fi ([89.27.25.51] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1NHiZ0-000DmX-66; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:44:02 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 89.27.25.51 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18aXqykwJulR9djGHxKsMpWTokE02rVp54= Message-ID: <4B1D4DD4.3050201@sci.fi> Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:47:48 +0200 Reply-To: jani.taskinen@iki.fi User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Derick Rethans CC: Ilia Alshanetsky , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johannes_Schl=FC?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ter?= , internals References: <1260193069.1383.33.camel@guybrush> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Towards 5.3.2 From: jani.taskinen@sci.fi (Jani Taskinen) Derick Rethans wrote: > On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > >> 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. > > I second that; I had no clue what was going on, and I only found out > about this wiki thing afterwards. Please get things back to normal like > we do with 5.2. Aye. No more wikis or branches. The way 5.2 releases have been done has worked just fine 11 times. No need to reinvent the wheel here. Also, 5.3.2 should include the new output buffering code that fixes about 10 open bugs currently in the tracker. Johannes, you seem to ignore emails, so try check the bugs assigned to you. And hopefully you won't disappear again for weeks. --Jani