Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:51929 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 88383 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2011 15:32:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Apr 2011 15:32:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=adam@adamharvey.name; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=adam@adamharvey.name; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain adamharvey.name designates 209.85.210.170 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: adam@adamharvey.name X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.210.170 mail-iy0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.210.170] ([209.85.210.170:57419] helo=mail-iy0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id A6/73-01409-D795CAD4 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:32:14 -0400 Received: by iyb12 with SMTP id 12so5094864iyb.29 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.113.86 with SMTP id z22mr66864ibp.93.1303140730124; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: adam@adamharvey.name Received: by 10.231.147.72 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:25:33 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: wT-aCsjhUBhjP07i0bCrrghyR8A Message-ID: To: internals Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Releases, trunk, policy and the wardrobe (Was: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: built-in web server in CLI.) From: aharvey@php.net (Adam Harvey) On 17 April 2011 07:17, Philip Olson wrote: > Are people still thinking about this? And how about applying the current/= revised patch to trunk thus making it easier to play with and break, but no= t freeze its features/API yet. As much as I like this idea =E2=80=94 and I really, genuinely, enthusiastically* do =E2=80=94 allow me to open the can of worms and repeat= a question I've asked periodically on IRC and IRL (with varying levels of directness) over the last few months: Is there any thought that we might stop throwing things into trunk soon and start thinking about some sort of release? 5.3.0 came out in June 2009. Even if we start the alpha process now, there's no chance trunk is going to hit stable until the last few months of the year, so we're looking at over two years between minor releases, which is about as long as I'd be comfortable leaving it =E2=80=94 not just for any PR reason, but because there's some genuinely good stuff in trunk that I think deserves to see the light of day. I mean, if people want to continue experimenting, that's great, but should we be factoring this into the thought process, at least? There's nothing stopping a 5.4 branch being created earlier than has been traditional (say, alpha 1 or beta 1) and letting development continue on trunk. In effect, we'd simply be reverting to the three branch model that's existed for most of the last few years. Sorry to hijack the thread, but I think the question needs to be asked. Anviliciously yours, Adam * You can insert more adverbs if you like. I am very +1 on this feature. I use the equivalent feature provided by Django for development all the time, and it's amazingly handy.