Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:47421 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 49503 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2010 03:05:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 19 Mar 2010 03:05:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ericleestewart@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ericleestewart@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ericleestewart@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.223.178 mail-iw0-f178.google.com Received: from [209.85.223.178] ([209.85.223.178:39638] helo=mail-iw0-f178.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 76/82-31664-50AE2AB4 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:05:42 -0500 Received: by iwn8 with SMTP id 8so1672032iwn.16 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:05:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Qvw+hYR4Ay/B6VPiMHewHkGQR7UfnP7kAglBgHSnw1c=; b=w5dwNm0ZdcVwHvoyE+ytHmXsz/Gi8NFz9J0Z/Poux1tuShVjmxou6F7bPmTq+Tymlb OA2xflRABE86VbG7PRCG1SaAEWRwuLfDrAzkAgHAAA4mITFaVj8+EnpXJDKc2KA0HfKy S1p/Dde2LrJWx36dPI6CQ8uGGNdUl5kntNyWw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=BGfzkVh/3EkeKzv5bqX90xOdQkXnDckV03joE3y9n2Wg3RYbuxy3ho3g1nm5GrJXX9 4yZ3+jpE0eKCixzHI6f1u9rBqSqdU5u7pLFefTNwU6ZfQSyRG+71+jm1yV9W8ecf5vhR otc6+eRLjixHNvT76qvQoggJ43+82NU2fpV/M= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.154.77 with SMTP id n13mr1664284ibw.11.1268967939539; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:05:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <042C5521-4AE9-477A-B182-31D5FFE08207@pooteeweet.org> References: <76412548-72DE-42D8-979D-9BD52AF754F8@pooteeweet.org> <042C5521-4AE9-477A-B182-31D5FFE08207@pooteeweet.org> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:05:39 -0400 Message-ID: To: internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636cd737f4484e404821e9f6a Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.4 branch and trunk From: ericleestewart@gmail.com (Eric Stewart) --001636cd737f4484e404821e9f6a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > On 18.03.2010, at 18:48, David Soria Parra wrote: > > On 2010-03-18, Pierre Joye wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Derick Rethans wrote: >>> >>> I do agree that we need to do major releases more often, but just >>>> setting a time already feels wrong. It's still open source, so it's >>>> ready when it is ready. That of course should not mean that we should >>>> keep on adding features endlessly. >>>> >>> >>> for releases, avoid commits rushes right before the freeze, etc. As >>> I've been said before already, I'm all for a fixed release cycle, it >>> is then much easier to define clear priorities and roadmaps. >>> >> >> +1. i think having a fixed release cycle has nothing to do with >> being opensource or not but with being more predictable for people >> depending on release dates. >> > > right. and again i think i was quite explict in my original mail that > common sense still applies. if we have a buggy release we will obviously not > release it just because. as for having enough to actually warrant a release > i do not ever remember a time where there werent atleast a handful feasible > proposals in varying size on the table. > > regard > Lukas > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > +1 For shorter release cycles. Shorter release cycles could also allow us to move major releases immediately to bug and security fixes only. I've never been a fan of seeing additional features added in minor releases. It's confusing enough to try and keep track of features from one major release to the next, but then we add in features on minors as well. "That feature was added in 5.3.1". Obviously this was not a good option when major releases were at 12 months or more apart. If we can shorten the cycle, I think it might be a good idea to visit how quickly each release is frozen to bug and security fixes only. This may just be a developmental pet-peave of mine, I'm sure I'll hear about it soon if the idea is unfavorable. As an additional note to this, performance patches which don't add additional features but only increase speed would still be fair game. P.S. 2: Reduced release cycle times might reduce the burdens on RMs as well by allowing them to commit to shorter time periods of release management responsibility. Not that I hear any of them complaining, just thinking this might be another good reason to give it a try. Eric Lee Stewart --001636cd737f4484e404821e9f6a--