Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50417 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 3224 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2010 01:35:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 23 Nov 2010 01:35:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.183 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.183 smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.183] ([67.192.241.183:60825] helo=smtp183.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 32/77-59959-46A1BEC4 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:35:33 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp18.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 34A3D2680E2; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:35:30 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp18.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id EF6D626827D; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:35:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4CEB1A61.1020202@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:35:29 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Felipe Pena CC: internals References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Hold off 5.4 From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Given the current state of trunk, I think 5.4 release process should > not begin tomorrow (alpha or whatever other status). There are > numerous identified issues that we need to fix before even think to > begin with a release. For example: I agree that it's better to discuss RC process RFC before starting the actual RC process. > - There are many changes not BC with 5.x, as we allowed them for the > development tree, before 5.4 was even a topic Do you have a list of such changes? > - APC is not yet bundled. Having the opcode bundle can raise issues by > one or another, we should have it in from the very 1st release This can be done post-alpha, I think - it's not very important for the rest of the alpha, if there's a problem we can postpone it but I don't believe we should hold releases just for that (I do believe we should for other things though :) -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227