Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50435
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        b=i/Wh3Lnlx5OTt70g64kvnu0cjq+XMmw4FY+DqqtRuLegYYzFIRjY1M/dYc8ZMaKjrf
         8kMj8he1IxOCOj0yZDaQWwiSD15s2Kz4/88GE3SKJ6TAEtv4fmxWqXo7KsRKtJMvPmvU
         Yz7to4lQ1bgUrwDViA4U7mMbRPai2mL5Z0FwY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011230945310.24401@kossu.derickrethans.nl>
References: <AANLkTi=coWEEMNnr_SsTCo7HaXUPRwcJg7fUz=NjA8nq@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1011230945310.24401@kossu.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:16:15 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTik7DR5Ohr86avmvVEaqoEz+vrp6P9G27BOoxRf1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
Cc: Felipe Pena <felipensp@gmail.com>, internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016368e32bb40d2150495b680c2
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Hold off 5.4
From: info@tyrael.hu (Ferenc Kovacs)

--0016368e32bb40d2150495b680c2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>
>
> > We also have no plan about what will or will not be 5.4. This looks
> > familiar, this is exactly how we begun 5.3 and it tooks literally
> > years to be released. There is also actually no agreement to begin
> > with 5.4 now.
>
> Yes, but instead of defining "what is PHP 5.4", why not just go with
> what we have? Everything that's not in thre is for PHP-next-next again.
>

backward compatibility=E2=84=A2
we had a few nice things in the PHP6 branch, which got merged into the
trunk, before choosing the version number for the trunk.
it's okay, but we agreed on that if that gets into the trunk, that it
doesn't mean, that it will be shipped automatically with the next release.
you can read again the fuss about the scalar type hinting:
after a release, we start to think trunk as a development branch, where
everything can get in:

At 18:04 22/05/2010, Pierre Joye wrote:

> hi Zeev,
>
> It seems that there was a bit of discussions on IRC about committing
> Ilia's implementation. However it is trunk, and trunk is a development
> tree. That means its purpose is to develop new PHP features. But it
> does not meant that these features will make it in the next releases
> or if they will remain as they are now.


but when we start to roll out a release, laziness/eagerness kicks in, and w=
e
start rambling about status quo (if it's in the trunk, then its ready to
go).

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

> Maybe I view trunk in a different way than others, but I think committing
> it turns it into some sort of 'status quo', and now we'd need a good
reason
> to change it.
>

And after all those discussion about the past and current scalar type hints=
,
here they are: they are planned to be released, without consensus, and the
current implementation doesn't even the same, that we talked our ass off
about. :/


> > 5.4 should be hold off until we solved the listed issues and the
> > release management RFC gets discussed and hopefully approved.
>
> Why do you need a release management RFC? We've made releases for more
> than a decade just fine.
>

yeah, but the current situation is a little bit different(we have code in
the trunk which was intended for 6.0, where bc isn't a problem at all), tha=
n
the previous ones.
and I think we can't say that there are room for improvements about the
current "lackoff" release policies.
hell, we don't even agree on things like what is the status of the code in
trunk(can we commit without consensus, or do we decide about it before the
release), or what are the rules for the versioning schema(which version is
allowed to break what). :/


>
> Stalling every time doesn't get us anywhere. IMO we should just go with
> it.

I am absolutely against stalling again!
>
>
I am too, but I think that we should carefully cherrypick, what to release
with 5.4 from the current trunk.

Tyrael

--0016368e32bb40d2150495b680c2--