Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:47351 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 46015 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2010 09:05:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Mar 2010 09:05:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=adam@adamharvey.name; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=adam@adamharvey.name; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain adamharvey.name from 74.125.92.27 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: adam@adamharvey.name X-Host-Fingerprint: 74.125.92.27 qw-out-2122.google.com Received: from [74.125.92.27] ([74.125.92.27:50229] helo=qw-out-2122.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CB/E5-00530-84B90AB4 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:05:13 -0500 Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 8so175084qwh.59 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:05:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: adam@adamharvey.name Received: by 10.229.99.77 with SMTP id t13mr419455qcn.80.1268816709551; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:05:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100317095059.164317cdmwcpmqcg@neo.wg.de> References: <1268776848.9651.204.camel@guybrush> <20100317095059.164317cdmwcpmqcg@neo.wg.de> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:04:49 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: b9e0b17265578f6f Message-ID: To: Jan Schneider Cc: internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 branch and trunk From: aharvey@php.net (Adam Harvey) On 17 March 2010 16:50, Jan Schneider wrote: > How about 5.3.99? A lot of projects use this for pre-releases, but it sti= ll > might make sense. I'm wary of sticking with anything starting with 5.3 if we're going to break binary compatibility on the new trunk (which we presumably are) =E2=80=94 it undermines the usual binary compatibility guarantees on "stabl= e" branches, even given that the new trunk is a development branch. As Johannes said: >> We can still increase the number if needed. I completely agree. IMO, there's nothing wrong with calling it 5.4 now and renumbering it to 6.0/7.0/whatever (in the same manner as what Postgres are currently doing with 8.5 becoming 9.0) later if it makes sense to. Adam