Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:47139
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 83.243.58.134 as permitted sender)
To: Ilia Alshanetsky <ilia@ilia.ws>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <4B997230.3070801@prohost.org>
References: <4B9926E8.4080202@lerdorf.com> <4B995F83.1000605@prohost.org>
	 <4B99639B.9030405@oracle.com>
	 <ce6b011c1003111359x44503559w69c226de6345a780@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4B996975.9070003@oracle.com>  <4B997230.3070801@prohost.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Organization: php.net
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:54:50 +0100
Message-ID: <1268348090.3959.52.camel@guybrush>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 6
From: johannes@php.net (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=)

On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 17:44 -0500, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Even though the 5.2 code base is fairly mature, it is far from being bug
> free. Unit tests are often a good way to identify corner cases that may
> not be handled properly even in the stable branches, so more tests IMHO
> is a good thing. Until the decision is made to discontinue the 5.2
> branch, which should be done eventually, maybe even later this year, we
> should not neglect it from any standpoint, especially tests.

I don't think we should force merging in 5.2, Chris madea good point
about proper testing of tests with external systems/libs.

On the other hand merging tests to5.2 and 5.3 means that we can find new
BC breaks we had overseen and either fix them or document them properly.

So I won't "waste" too much time but not forget about 5.2.

johannes


> On 10-03-11 5:06 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> > Eric Stewart wrote:
> >
> > > Focusing TestFest on 5.3 was not how I had envisioned TestFest 2010,
> > I was
> > > operating under the assumption we would be committing all applicable
> > tests
> > > to 5.2, 5.3 and 6.0 as was done last year. Focusing strictly on 5.3
> > > certainly makes my job (and others working on TestFest 2010) easier
> > but I
> > > wasn't aware that anyone was even entertaining this.
> > >
> > > This is obviously not strictly on point with this discussion and I
> > don't
> > > think a divergence from the main topic is appropriate at this
> > moment. But it
> > > underscores the importance that we will be much better off hashing
> > this out
> > > sooner rather than later as things in the near future will certainly
> > bear
> > > significant effects.
> > >
> > > As this thread winds down and consensus is reached, I'll bring this
> > > particular topic up again on the QA List with a discussion based on
> > results
> > > of late events.
> > >
> > > Eric Lee Stewart
> > >
> >
> > I think they should be merged to 5.3 and trunk (which is the "branch"
> > I really meant in my previous email, not 5.4).
> >
> > Looking at e.g. the DBA tests, I am building with 3 different versions
> > of the Berkeley DB client library.  With OCI8 tests I build with three
> > different client libraries and then test against three different DB
> > versions.  Repeating this kind of effort for 5.2 at this mature stage
> > of its life isn't worthwhile use of resources IMHO (when no code has
> > changed).  In a perfect world we'd do it, but where we are now I think
> > we need to focus the efforts of testers on 5.3+.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>