Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:50437
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.161.170 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=a/0PjXvCprrswehIHhLLxSBz7yt641i/KBZkDdYEYIh+T1WRrZwchApqqmuXboAqKW
         oom9Edlu2Am9RrdClhyskuq007qY26KNbhytpHdaUKR3zVo1b/hadtPYQpG1ZtYQUa9T
         dcoUCe3uPlv5LAyRMunCR0zm0Mx3TrDxlpTWA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011231002140.24401@kossu.derickrethans.nl>
References: <AANLkTi=ox5uUvEpo8ZuegpTPJLiS353Oqtud1WFGOPUT@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1011231002140.24401@kossu.derickrethans.nl>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:32:29 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikpkcXr34ftFiJdpAUQZ2uVn7kkNr+DToB=9Bkq@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=000e0cd4020257065f0495b6ba07
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Release Process
From: info@tyrael.hu (Ferenc Kovacs)

--000e0cd4020257065f0495b6ba07
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Felipe Pena wrote:
>
> > With the recent chaos in the way we begin and ended releases, we would
> > like to propose a clean way to deal with releases and related decisions:
> [1]
>
> Really? I think you're blowing this all way out of proportion.
>

Why do you think that?
I can see two reason:
1) you think that the current rules/policies/methods are good enough.
2) you think that these rules/policies/methods aren't important for the
quality of the release.

both seems wrong from the past experiences of new php major/major.minor
releases.
see my last email in the other thread


>
> I don't mind a yearly release cycle, as we should get out more releases.
> I don't mind a monthly release cycle for .z releases.
>
> What however goes straight against this is:
>
>     * January
>          o Decisions which features or changes will be in the next
>            release
>
> You don't decide on it, you just have to go with what we have.
>

who decided that?


>
> All the rest you write in the RFC is basically already as we do it.
>

yeah, maybe, but they aren't written down, accepted and well-known rules, so
you can forgot/misunderstand/bend them. :/

Tyrael

--000e0cd4020257065f0495b6ba07--